What is being hidden in the Barrett Report, the fruit of the special prosecutororial investigation of Henry Cisneros that has gone on for a decade?

The final report of David M. Barrett, an independent counsel appointed in 1995 to investigate potential felonies committed by one-time Clinton administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, is tentatively scheduled for release on Jan. 19, Barrett told FOXNews.com.

However, Barrett and others say, thanks to an amendment to the November judiciary appropriations bill, key elements in the final report, which was completed in August 2004 and has been sitting with a three-judge panel at the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. ever since, may be heavily redacted before its release.

"As it currently stands, the report will not be released in its entirety," said Barrett, who didn't want to speculate why or which portions of the report may not be made public. One decade and some millions of taxpayers' dollars later, he said he is disappointed that the report may not reflect his careful and diligent efforts.

"I believe after 10 years and the expense of $22 million, the public has the right to see the entire report and make their own judgments," he said.

As the contents of the report have been sealed, Barrett is unable to offer details, but sources say the most serious of the allegations concerns, in part, the use of the Internal Revenue Service under the Clinton administration to intimidate political foes. The charges in the report could embarrass former members and associates of the Clinton White House, including former first lady and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., say the sources.

"Some people have said it contains some serious allegations, and when people see the report, they can decide for themselves," Barrett said.

There must be something in there that is embarrassing to someone in the Barrett Report. After all, there are certainly enough motions to redact information being filed.

In October, after voicing concerns that the report had yet to be released, Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa and Dorgan introduced an amendment to the judiciary appropriations bill that would have released all portions of the report, with deletions only for "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy."

But the language worked out in the subsequent House-Senate conference and in the final bill gave much more discretion to the court to redact individuals' names, which critics contend, ensures that much of Section Five and the most serious charges would be left out of the final report.

Barrett said he is disappointed, but not surprised, at the developments. At least 146 motions have been filed by lawyers connected to the individuals cited in the report, which is reportedly 450 pages long with 2,600 footnotes, delaying its release.

Grassley, in his October remarks regarding the need for the report's imminent release, blamed "foot-dragging" by the lawyers for the individuals named in the report.

"It is the lawyers of the individuals named in the report who have been engaged in one sole pursuit: to foot-drag every inch of the way, filing every motion they can to delay, delay, delay," he said.

Strange, isn’t it, that no one is leaking THIS report, and that the press is not making an issue of the veil of secrecy around this information? It couldn’t be that the fact that this investigation deals with the Clinton Administration – and that Hillary! Is running for president – that causes the deafening silence on the issue?