Replies

Let’s demystify Newt’s ethic charges.

The accusation by innuendo and total fabrication is an outright a lie.

What is disturbing is the man leveling these accusations is presumed to be honorable and devoutly religious. Mitt is not a young man and may be this side of some stability issues mentally or is desperate enough that stacking the deck is the only thing up his sleeve.

Mitt is telling this big lie because it is the last resort of someone who cannot sustain their position for its lack of strength or total vacuousness. As in “There’s no there…there” in regards to ideas.

Mitt ain’t that nice guy persona everyone has been pushing and he is lying despite Gingrich having been exonerated…Totally and Completely on the myriad and volume of charges leveled at him over a four year period.

Mitt’s lying, Christie doesn’t care and pretends to have the facts at hand, which is strange given he is a former prosecutor and would have had enough facts/evidence gathered before attempting to prosecute and convict someone.

Makes me question the quality of his cases and perhaps they should be reviewed.

The whole affair was just a really bad movie:

The plot is concocted by someone not important enough to name here and in 1995 Gingrich is accused of violating rule 45 of his ethics obligations. A totally trumped up and baseless charge.

The 1^st scene of this really bad movie started with David Bonior, the then powerful and outspoken Democratic whip in the House, who in 1996 uses the press as his microphone and blurts "Mr. Gingrich has engaged in a pattern of tax fraud, lies, and cover-ups in paving his road to the second highest office in the land…I would expect the Justice Department, the FBI, a grand jury, and other appropriate entities to investigate."

Newt was accused of:

83 counts of Ethics Violations. None of which stuck because they were trumped up and phony charges to begin with
Lying to the Ethics Counsel.( The charge was later amended to something less significant ) One minor charge in which Newt had his lawyer write some letter that wasn’t fully complete in it’s response to a demand by the Ethics Committee and Newt didn’t read it before signing it and having it sent. He later corrected the error.
Tax fraud. The IRS didn’t just conclude he had done nothing wrong they went further and extolled that the class was something that every American would find valuable as a civics lesson.

Having no luck in convicting Newt on the 1^st phony charge Bonior and his merry political henchmen continued fabricating circumstance and accusations for the next three years. Charge after charge would be leveled at Gingrich a total of 84.

Why were there so many charges with so little to show? It comes down to losers have a habit of losing and in this case there was collective cabal who excelled at losing and I’m not sure they didn’t actually feel some sense of empowerment for all their losses.

But they were and are still losers with no conscience. That’s the way of the world.

In the end it always about them and they will employ any self serving, win at all costs tactic to achieve their nirvana.

Too bad they really never got there otherwise they might feel even better about themselves

To cap off their outrageouse waste of taxpayer resources and monies on frivolous and unsubstantiated charges, Bill Clinton’s IRS was employed as weapon against Gingrich.

That concocted investigation, which by any standard was exhaustive, revealed only that Gingrich had, as stated in the 74 page report by the IRS:

“The 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." It said: "The course was not biased toward particular politicians, or a particular party. The facts show the class was much more than a political platform."

That’s it? That’s all you got?

In the end, after pursuing a strategy of “If you look long enough, you can eventually find something wrong” strategy Gingrich was found guilty of “Engaging in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives." That’s it? You have got to be kidding?

In 1998 the House dropped the remaining charges (83 of 84)! Amazing! Right! I mean here is a guy accused of just “so many violations” and they can’t manage to convict him?

In 1999, the IRS concluded Newt Gingrich had conducted a very thoughtful course that was well balanced(favored neither Republican nor Democrats), highly educational and violated no rules or laws of ethics, funding or tax laws.

The bottom line:

Gingrich violated no laws. Remember, there were over a course of three year 83 charges of ethics violations and none of the accusations bore any fruit.
There was no tax fraud scheme. The IRS concluded the course that animated this whole BS was, in fact, a very good civic lesson to anyone who completed the course but that’s not a crime.
Only one minor charge of dubious construction was admitted to. “Engaging in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives”.

“…The Subcommittee and the Special Counsel recommend that the appropriate sanction should be reprimand and a payment reimbursing the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000”.

(Source: House Report 105 page 94 “para’s #2 and #6) (If you want to read the final House report you can find it here in PDF it’s only 137 pages

You couldn’t seriously charge him with anything serious enough to even get him Censured. What is a reprimand anyway? “Don’t do it again?”

So it ended after all those years or so we thought until some one with no ideas, who has never had any ideas decides the only way to win is scorched earth and a war of attrition?

Mitt you idiot, Gingrich has fought that battle before against an army of partisans. You are a mere hack and your political demise will be all too fitting for its pastel colors of flourish.

Here is a video of how CNN describes the end of this affair,.which opens as follows (2:26 mins and illuminating for its source):

It was legal after all. Newt Gingrich's oh-so-controversial college course that he started back in 1993, before he was speaker. (Hat tip: Greg Hengler Blogger, Townhall.com)

Here Newt sits at a news conference and reminds them as of the date of this interview he has been exonerated on 10 charges which seemed to make page 1 of the newspapers but his exoneration couldn’t seem to be reported on.

Further, anything that might have been questioned from an ethical point was pre-cleared with the Ethics Committee

3:44 minutes of Newt illuminating their stoopidity: Newt Gingrich: I'm an ethical person
This is Newt in December of 2011 he sums up nicely and in rapid fire what happened http://youtu.be/0TPuoYi3vH0

So in the end we have a bumper sticker for Gingrich’s opponents:

Got Newt…Nope..

Just this lousy T-shirt

Ping

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

Yours is good too because it has source-material links.

BUMP!

Here is another good article from the Washington Examiner that tells about Ben Jones, who Newt defeated and took over his seat in Congress. It is Ben Jones who initiated all the trumped up charges against Newt. Here is the link:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

Thanks for your contribution to the truth, Vendome!

The folks are watching Shepherd Smith (Yuck!) on FOX .... I overheard the little turd just say (in talking to another reporter) that Gingrich “resigned in disgrace”. Charles Krauthammer the other night was asked what was correct .... he explained quite well that Newt resigned in defeat (2 yrs after ethics debacle), not disgrace. Newt did not have the confidence of the Republicans and resigned .... as did Maggie Thatcher for the same reason. He made the point that there is no disgrace in resigning in defeat ..... something the libs are willfully ignoring.

Newt was accused of:

•83 counts of Ethics Violations. None of which stuck because they were trumped up and phony charges to begin with
•Lying to the Ethics Counsel.( The charge was later amended to something less significant ) One minor charge in which Newt had his lawyer write some letter that wasn’t fully complete in it’s response to a demand by the Ethics Committee and Newt didn’t read it before signing it and having it sent. He later corrected the error.
•Tax fraud. The IRS didn’t just conclude he had done nothing wrong they went further and extolled that the class was something that every American would find valuable as a civics lesson.

That’s it? That’s all you got?

The bottom line:

•Gingrich violated no laws. Remember, there were over a course of three year 83 charges of ethics violations and none of the accusations bore any fruit.
•There was no tax fraud scheme. The IRS concluded the course that animated this whole BS was, in fact, a very good civic lesson to anyone who completed the course but that’s not a crime.
•Only one minor charge of dubious construction was admitted to. “Engaging in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives”.

Here is a video of how CNN describes the end of this affair: http://youtu.be/qMpBBRUCMd8

3:44 minutes of Newt illuminating their stoopidity: http://youtu.be/RRhaEvhD2VA

This is Newt in December of 2011 he sums up nicely and in rapid fire what happened:http://youtu.be/0TPuoYi3vH0

bttt

Excellent!

Vendom, Thank you for compiling and posting this information.

Good work, Vendome!

Two words:

“Saul Alinsky”.

That’s what it was then. That’s what it is now.

Total baloney.

In sum, by associating himself with the borking of Gingrich Mitt Romney has set himself up for a withering counterattack. He had better hope that no reporter ever dares to ask Gingrich about those charges in a televised debate. Gingrich could point out the obvious facts you have brought out, and ask the reporter precisely why he or she has not reported that Romney is associating himself with bogus charges.