Despite the wall-to-wall coverage of the Rove/Libby/Cheney/ Plame/Wilson/Fitzgerald/CIA investigation, there are, believe it or not, some people who are already a little tired of the whole thing.

For that matter, there are those who don’t care all that much about the case against Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas). And — get this — there are others who aren’t even interested in Sen. Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.) stock dealings.

What they really want — although they never dreamed they’d be able to have it again — is a good old Clinton scandal.

Well, this is their lucky day. Because as Washington works itself into a frenzy about current scandals, two little-remembered figures from the past have come back from the mists to deliver one more blast from the 1990s.

One is Henry Cisneros, who was Bill Clinton’s first secretary of housing. The other is David Barrett — extra points if you remember that name — who has spent the past decade working as the independent counsel investigating Cisneros.

Well, not really Cisneros. Although Barrett’s probe began with Cisneros, it long ago turned into something different — although what that is is not entirely clear.

Barrett’s original task — he was appointed in May 1995 — was to investigate allegations that Cisneros, during the vetting process before joining the Clinton administration, lied to the FBI about payments he had made to his mistress, Linda Medlar. In September 1999, more than four years after Barrett began work, Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and paid a $10,000 fine.

But that wasn’t the end of it. During the course of investigation, Barrett apparently asked questions about Cisneros’s taxes. That, apparently, led to a showdown with the Internal Revenue Service and, later, the Clinton Justice Department.

And that led to a years-long standoff. It took Barrett until August 2004 to finish his report.

When he handed it in to the special court that appointed him, the court, as required by law, gave people affected by the investigation a chance to respond to Barrett. What happened then was that some of those people, rather than simply responding to Barrett, actively worked to block public release of the report.

Another standoff ensued. Clinton-era figures named in the report filed secret motions to suppress the document. Barrett filed countermotions. Some Democrats in Congress tried to kill the whole thing, in the hope that the report would never see the light of day. It looked as though the squabbling might go on forever.

Then, finally, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) got involved.

First, he took a leadership role as the Senate passed a bill that would cut off funds to Barrett’s office — he has already spent $20 million — but, more important, force release of the report.

“Media reports are giving very credible commentary that the independent-counsel report discusses problems at the office of criminal investigation at the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice,” Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee and member of the Judiciary Committee, said on the Senate floor. “These matters do not involve Mr. Cisneros but raise extremely important questions about the administration of the tax code.”

Then, last week, Grassley personally asked the judges to give him a copy of the report.

“As you know, the [court] is a creation of the Congress and would not exist but for its establishment as part of the law creating the independent counsel,” Grassley wrote. “A fair reading of the law is that given my legislative responsibilities in the Congress, the court should provide a copy to me if requested.”

It wasn’t long before the court decided to get rid of its problem. It issued an order directing that much of the Barrett report be released to the public — it is apparently still withholding some sensitive parts — and that all of the report be released to Congress.

That is major progress. But there is still one catch. The judges stayed their own order for 10 days to allow anybody involved in the case to petition the Supreme Court to keep the report under wraps.

“If no such stay is sought within the period ... then this stay shall be lifted,” the court said.

While that seems like a setback, it might not be a bad thing. In the past, the Clinton-era figures who wanted to delay the report were able to do so in secret, filing sealed motions with the court. Now, if they want to ask the Supreme Court to suppress Barrett’s report, they will have to do so publicly. So at least we will know who they are.

Barrett says he is “extremely pleased” with the order and says lawmakers and the public “have a right to know the contents of the entire report.”

That’s right. And one more question: Was it worth $20 million of the taxpayers’ money?

That’s what we need to find out.

York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it