House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker (Flashback)

WaPo ^ | Jan.22, 1997 | John E. Yang

[fightinJAG]

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

"Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). "If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment."

[snip]

The 395 to 28 vote closes a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then-GOP whip. . . .

[snip]

House ethics committee members took pride in yesterday's bipartisan resolution of the case. "We have proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is, we can police ourselves, we do know right from wrong," said Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who headed the investigative subcommittee that charged Gingrich.

[snip]

For Gingrich, it was another humbling event in a remarkable series of peaks and valleys since 1994.

[snip]

In a strongly worded report, special counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich had violated tax law and lied to the investigating panel, but the subcommittee would not go that far. In exchange for the subcommittee agreeing to modify the charges against him, Gingrich agreed to the penalty Dec. 20 as part of a deal in which he admitted guilt.

[maine-iac7]

After a long deliberation, I have decided that I will not vote for Gingrich in the primaries. You know all the reasons why, so no need to detail them here.

aahaha - you probably were/are a good lawyer.

First you dig up a hit piece about someone getting charged with something but conveniently neglect to also mention that the person was exonerated...to protect your client which is who - Romney? Then you say "...no need to go into details here' and then go on and on. Yep, you got that there lawyer thing down pat.

[maine-iac7]

. His own party couldn’t stand him.

You mean like some republicans today can;t stand him - and for the same reasons? He's a real danger to their power.

He's not an Ivy League lawyer, part of the Establishment Republicans in Washington - he doesn't play ball with their underhanded Cabal, then or now.

He is looked down upon by the Cabal Elitists who have controlled the process and decided who our nominees will be for decades. He throws a monkey wrench in their machine.

And just who does he think he is, after all! He went to a - gasp - college in Georgia!. He's only a Doctor of History. He can think for himself, isn't puppet material.

Last president we had out of the Ivy League Cabal was Reagan.

That worked out pretty good.

(Same reasons Sarah has been so savagely maligned. We can't have the upstart nobodies from outside the chosen people getting in the way.)

[maine-iac7]

Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

continuing with the half truths, I see. Well, that answers that.

You are totally ignoring the article where it states: "after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. "The ... course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician."

Keep it up and people might think you're an

[maine-iac7]

ONCE MORE

after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. "The ... course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician."

Can you read it this time? - You've got the link, so you are either deliberately ignoring it or you can't see the print.

[maine-iac7]

C’mon dude, those other charges were dropped when Newt copped a plea and agreed to pay $300,000 ...

C'mon dude yourself. The IRS found him innocent of this charge and YOU KNOW IT!

from the link I have sent you -

after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. "The ... course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician."

Your disgracing yourself and FR

[maine-iac7]

Right now, I support Rick Santorum. I don’t let the polls pick my candidate for me

Then promote your candidate honestly - instead of lying about others.

[maine-iac7]

No, as a matter of fact - he didn’t. The IRS found him not guilty of the charge.

after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. “The ... course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician.”

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html

Tuck that away somewhere so’s you won’t be tempted to carry water for the dems and Establishment republicans, like this thread poster and others are doing.

[maine-iac7]

so he isn't controlled by the Establishment Ivy League Republican Cabal in Washington - the ones who, for decades, have been controlling the elections process and deciding who our candidates will be?

And he won't appoint members of The Cabal to his cabinet - according to names he has already mentioned? The Cabal was successful on forcing Reagan to take a member as his VP, and many others. But Newt won't.

Sounds good to me.

BTW, where you get your law degree?

[maine-iac7]

Because his lawyer missed something he shouldn’t have - and led Newt to belief he had violated the rule.

The IRS, in reviewing it, discovered the mistake and exonerated him.

But you just continue ignoring this since it doesn’t fit your agenda.

But you make one wonder if you are dishonest or just incapable of admitting the facts, even to yourself.

[maine-iac7]

lawyer speak - parsing and half truths.

Sometimes I wonder if lawyers are so trained in twisting the truth to win their cases if they can even recognize truth anymore.But after all these posts and the truth of the matter made known to you, it looks like you knew it all along, just hoped no one else did or would.

Typical lawyer tactics.

I'd say you are embarrassingly yourself, but I doubt that's possible. Obama is incapable of being embarrassed also.

But this thread is far from what I understand FR to be about.

[maine-iac7]

You do realize not everyone loved Reagan either. Churchill was hardly the most beloved among many. Newt was fighting the elites. They got ticked off. That hard to understand?

I'm beginning to wonder if his stubbornness in this is because he's a lawyer in the Republican's Ivy League Establishment Cabal that has been running the party and choosing our candidates for decades.

Newt was an anathema to them then and an even bigger threat to them now.

Watching the melt down of Tokyo Rove, Kraughthammer, Wills et al shows how panicked they are.

Looks like we can expect many more of these dishonest attacks on Newt. They are in full panic mode. they forced many of their puppets, starting with his VP - GHWB - on Reagan - but they know that Newt will chose his own team. They are staring at a very real loss of power. The bubbles are disappearing out of their champagne.

Whether Jag is a shill for them will be evident if he continues with such threads/posts in the coming weeks. He certainly sounds desperate to turn us against Newt.

[maine-iac7]

sniff sniff

yes, the smell of a shill for the Establishment is getting stronger by the post...

[maine-iac7]

It’s really adolescent that this meme has taken over that what’s really the point of a thread is the poster’s motive in posting it.

What's adolescnet - and insulting - is posting a link of an ancient incident - but neglect to add the outcome showing he was exonerated - by the IRS , of all entities...and then consistently refusing to acknowledge it.

So if some of us wonder if you're a shill for the Establishment, which is in full panic mode, knowing Gingrich can bring them down - that their Crony Capitalism and control is in peril - well, you certainly are making it hard to believe otherwise.

I suspect you are just one of the initial attack dogs of disinformation/twisting of facts. Hope they're paying you for your dedicated efforts.

You didn't post this old article for any reason other than muck-raking. We are not all gullible nor brain dead.

[FreedomPoster]

>>We are all guilty of breaking some federal regulation - it’s just a matter of who wants to enforce it and why.

On that note, see the first quote on my FR profile page.

[Hoodat]

Then promote your candidate honestly - instead of lying about others.

Let's try again, shall we? Your posts confirm my contention that Newt violated House rules and paid a fine. I made no mention of the IRS, nor did I bring up the IRS strawman. So perhaps the lack of honesty is on your part.

[phockthis]

The more these RINO Repubs fight Newt’s nomination, the more it makes me want him over Mittens

[Excellence]

This appears to back you up:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2817541/posts

And, evidently, the $300,000 was not a fine, but reimbursement for the cost of the witch hunt.

[fightinJAG]

Romney is not your only other choice in the primaries.

[fightinJAG]

He certainly sounds desperate to turn us against Newt.

I'm glad I'm not going through life thinking that everyone who disagrees with me is attempting to manipulate me rather than just having an honest disagreement.

[fightinJAG]

But this thread is far from what I understand FR to be about.

Then say so and move on. Your opinion is one among many. Thank you.