"All the news that fits"

Headline above the fold on the front page of in this morning's New York Times:

Inquiry on Clinton Official Ends With Accusations of Cover-Up

$21 million dollars. A ten year investigation (going a full six years after the Independent Counsel statute had been allowed to expire). This is the best he can come up with? Can't prove anything in court, but Barrett delivers a 768 page report complaining that he wasn't given wide enough latitude by Clinton administration officials to pursue the case.

Well done, sir.

And the Times deems that a front page story and writes a headline and lede that makes one believe Barrett had evidence of a cover-up. Um, not so much.

Mr. Barrett said I.R.S. officials in Washington took over a district-level inquiry in Texas into Mr. Cisneros's taxes and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to go ahead with a criminal investigation. But in a 1997 memorandum protesting the decision, an I.R.S. investigator in Texas said there was evidence that Mr. Cisneros had diverted substantial parts of his speaking fees in the early 1990's to the former mistress, without the knowledge of co-workers.

But other I.R.S. and Justice Department officials said that a fairly complete listing of Mr. Cisneros's income from various sources was available to his accountants, whom he relied on to prepare his tax returns. That would have made it impossible to sustain a prosecution, they said.

Another Pulitzer-worthy story deemed appropriate for the front page this morning:

As Smoke Clears, Tobacco Maker Opens Lounge

Meanwhile, buried on page A19 (and listed under "All Headlines" on nytimes.com's Washington section):

Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance

Apparently, the Paper of Record did not find this story to have much merit.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration's limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping without warrants are "inconsistent with the law."

There you have it, Sheeple, it's breaking news that Clinton administration officials, worn out by a never-ending parade of special counsels, each on his own fishing-expedition-cum-jeremiad, were not exacly rushing to help yet another Ahab obsessed with the pursuit of a guy trying to hide evidence of his mistress. On the other hand, it's rather ho hum when a nonpartisan congressional analysis finds that the current administration BROKE THE LAW.

Damn liberal media.