Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Really Happened in the Gingrich Ethics Case?
Washington Examiner ^ | January 24, 2012 | Byron York

Posted on 01/24/2012 10:04:04 PM PST by County Agent Hank Kimball

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 last
To: County Agent Hank Kimball
The greatest of the original anti establishment, anti RINO leaders still alive today is:

Newton Leroy Gingrich!

GO NEWT!

141 posted on 01/25/2012 5:35:19 PM PST by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Jim - please visit the link to the main story on this post - read the whole thing. It's a bit long, but it shows that Gingrich was completely exonerated from any ethics charge whatsoever.

This deserves a top-of-the-main-page link! (just my 2 cents)

What think ye?

142 posted on 01/25/2012 8:19:50 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball

Ping for Tomorrow


143 posted on 01/25/2012 8:57:37 PM PST by Batman11 (Obama's poll numbers are so low the Kenyans are claiming he was born in the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Is Byron York right? Does Gingrich have to address ethics charges that he eventually won? I think he does, and that's because of the underlined parts in the first paragraph. Note that he says it was "his colleagues" who tried to destroy him. He is not talking only about democrats. Many republicans, including John Boehner, were in that group of republicans.

I agree that Gingrich has to address the ethics charges. It is hard to call this a bipartisan witchhunt when the Rep controlled House vote was 395 to 28 with 85% of the Reps voting for the reprimand and the financial penalty. The Ethics committee vote was 7-1 for the reprimand.

The IRS ruling had to do with Newt's foundation, not Newt. The IRS, concluding a three-year investigation, ruled that the Progress and Freedom Foundation's donations to Gingrich were "consistent with its stated exempt purposes," and Gingrich's course and course book "were educational in content."

Moments after Cole spoke, Gingrich's lawyer, J. Randolph Evans, said Gingrich had agreed to the proposed punishment in the case. "The speaker himself has apologized to the subcommittee, to the House and to the American people," he said.

Pelosi was a sitting member on the Ethics Committee. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.),(now Senator Cardin) the top Democrat on the investigative subcommittee, said: "It isn't a very pleasant matter to sit in judgment . . . but it must be done. . . . This is a sad day."

I wouldn't put it past either Pelosi or Cardin to disclose confidential information thru surrogates. If Newt gets the nomination, things could get very nasty in the General Election. Newt must take the gloves off and go after Obama personally.

144 posted on 01/25/2012 9:31:44 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

House Rep’s statement on Newt Gingrich’s Non Fine...

Numerous statements from elected officials and other individuals associated with the Committee’s investigation make it clear that the sanction levied against Speaker Gingrich was nothing more than a cost assessment. In presenting the Report to the Members of the House, former Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R-CT) characterized the Speaker’s payment in the following manner:

“Likewise in past cases where the committee imposed monetary sanctions on a Member, the committee found that the Member had been personally enriched by the misconduct. The committee made no such finding against Representative Gingrich, yet recommends that a cost reimbursement of $300,000 be paid to the House by him.”

Likewise, Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), a member of the Investigation Subcommittee, described the Report findings in the Congressional Record as follows:

“Based upon the allegation, the violations we found, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on a 7-to-1 vote, full committee now, entire committee, recommended the following penalty. It recommended a reprimand and a cost assessment of $300,000. . . . We set $300,000 as the estimated costs of that portion of the investigation that dealt with clearing up the misstatements that we received, which may be begun to be prepared in Mr. Gingrich’s law firm, but for which he is responsible as Member of the House.”

Indeed, even Democrat Congressman (now Senator) Ben Cardin (D-MD) agreed on the proper classification of the Speaker’s $300,000 payment. In his remarks to the House urging adoption of the Ethics Committee Report and Resolution, then-Congressman Cardin described the proposed sanction against Speaker Gingrich in the following manner:

“It provides a reprimand plus a required $300,000 contribution by Mr. Gingrich to the cost of these proceedings.”

Moreover, in the transcript of the sanctions proceedings before the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Special Counsel to the House Ethics Committee James Cole could not have made it more clear when he responded to questions from Congressman Thomas Sawyer (D-OH) as follows:

“In addition, this is not a fine that we are recommending. The rule book says that a fine is an appropriate sanction when a member has received personal gain. And as Mr. Smith had asked and as I told him, no, we did not find that.”

In sum, there was never any fine levied against Speaker Gingrich as a result of the findings of the House Ethics Committee Report referenced in the subject advertisements. Any statement to the contrary in any broadcast communication produced on behalf of Governor Romney, any other presidential candidate, or any SuperPAC is all at once false, misleading, and defamatory.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/06/gispeaker-gingrich-says-it-is-false-and-defamatory-he-unleashes-his-lawyer-about-romney-superpac-and-official-romney-ads-for-president/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnewsin


145 posted on 01/25/2012 9:50:01 PM PST by ConfidentConservative (If my people shall humble themselves and pray,I will hear from Heaven and heal their land.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball

Supporters of Newt should start a “Newt wants his $300K back!” campaign.


146 posted on 01/25/2012 10:27:34 PM PST by TheWriterTX (All in now for Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball

I have sincere respect for Byron York. He is telling it like it is.

I think Mittens and Nancy are both barking up the wrong tree with this one!!!


147 posted on 01/25/2012 10:42:46 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

I have not heard of the Bain/Romney connection to the Bilderbergers but I wouldn’t doubt the probability considering some other well heeled/placed people belong. From where or what source do you have information for such. I know there are some lists of some attendees but I don’t recall seeing A romney name. I still believe that a report of Bain/Romney being involved in investing in 9/11 area and then making money by selling it to a Muslim organization for a mosque needs investigation and exposure if true. Perhaps the info is already known for sure but there is concern of irritating Muslims who probably have a lot of money in this election. I also tend to think that the Bildebergergers have Soros and the Rothchild international banking interests as movers.


148 posted on 01/25/2012 10:45:08 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball; onyx; trisham; TheOldLady; DJ MacWoW; JoeProBono; RedMDer; musicman; ...

ping


149 posted on 01/26/2012 3:29:23 AM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is not just brewing, rebellion is here!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
B T T T ! ! ! ©


150 posted on 01/26/2012 3:56:59 AM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC - DONATE MONTHLY! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
54 posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 2:55:56 AM by Just mythoughts: “Here is some homework that will not require an ordained pastor to explain to any Christian worth their salt to understand the high minded moderate GOP establishment LIES when saying Gingrich is/was challenged ethically.”

Thank you for the ping.

The ethics case against Newt Gingrich didn't make sense to me when I read it years ago and I don't remember ever getting on that bandwagon of critics even back then.

Ethics rules have gotten so complex that it's possible to make a minor mistake into something much more serious, which might not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that real violations of ethics end up getting ignored because too many people use the “ethics” line of attack too often.

The “cry wolf” problem applies here, except I think some Democrats and RINO enablers are crying wolf deliberately.

Republicans **DO** care about ethics accusations and will take them seriously, often derailing and sometimes destroying Republican candidates. On the other hand, getting the general public used to ethics allegations will help Democrats by allowing them to evade blame for stuff they really **HAVE** done wrong.

151 posted on 01/26/2012 5:00:54 AM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: kabar; P-Marlowe

I watched Newt on Hannity last night, and he clearly responded with substance. He has released all the contracts. They clearly say there is no lobbying for F&F. He has had involved people state there was no lobbying. And he has evidence of classes to teach his people not to get close to lobbying.

Now, what really is a clincher is that no person from the past is saying, “Newt lobbied me.” Like with tango, it takes 2 to lobby.


152 posted on 01/26/2012 5:06:17 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball
Hank, I was surprised to see all the stuff headlining on Drudge about Gingrich this morning. It's a lot to digest,one stab after another...how much of it is true,I wonder?
And I have to believe that it's Mutt's people who are coming out with it.Very frustrating.
Mutt's obvious strategy is to keep Gingrich focused on defending himself and explaining past dealings,rather than focusing on the issues.
Someone else mentioned "Palinization"....that's about right.
153 posted on 01/26/2012 7:59:32 AM PST by gimme1ibertee ("Criticism......brings attention to an unhealthy state of things"-Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Bump!


154 posted on 01/26/2012 10:44:35 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson