Posted on 02/06/2012 7:47:32 AM PST by Democrats hate too much
In politics, what goes around comes around — especially if you’re running for president.
In 1988, then-Congressman Newt Gingrich’s success in bringing down Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright on ethics charges helped propel the Georgian into the House GOP leadership.
But in 1994, then-Speaker Gingrich became the subject of his own lengthy ethics investigation. Although he was not found guilty on any of the 84 charges, the probe resulted in a reprimand from the House Ethics Committee, a $300,000 fine, dwindling support from the Republican caucus and his eventual resignation from Congress.
“I’m willing to lead,” Gingrich said, announcing his departure in 1998, “but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals.”
Now, Republicans are at one another once again, and those old ethics charges have become ammunition for Mitt Romney and the Super PAC that backs him, which saturation- bombed voters in Florida and Nevada with ads replaying news clips from that time.
The ads contributed to Romney’s game-changing win in Florida, which blunted the momentum of Gingrich’s South Carolina victory, and they continue to be effective, analysts say.
“There’s no question that those ads have had a devastating effect on Gingrich,” said Dan Schnur, a California political analyst who directed the 2000 primary campaign of John McCain. “Not surprisingly, the Romney campaign and his outside allies are going to continue to attack on this front.”
However, both Gingrich friends and foes question whether voters remember or understand the ethics episode, which sometimes seems like a scene out of “Rashomon,” a film that tells a tale from several points of view, none of which fully mesh.
The controversy grew from a course of study Gingrich developed in 1993 for Kennesaw State College (now Kennesaw State University) called Renewing American Civilization. The course was billed as a broad look at “the core pillars of American civilization,” and examined such abstract concepts as “personal strength,” “economic growth” and “the spirit of invention and discovery.”
Available to 150 graduate and undergraduate students, the course would also be offered through a satellite uplink and would be recorded on video and audio cassettes to be redistributed across the country.
To cover the additional costs of production, Gingrich solicited tax-deductible donations to the college’s foundation. Some contributions came from Gingrich supporters and from GOPAC, the Republican political action committee that he took over in 1986. GOPAC executive director Jeffrey Eisenach resigned from the PAC to run the course.
Forty Kennesaw professors signed a petition in opposition to the course, describing it as partisan and citing its ties to GOPAC. The state Board of Regents agreed, and passed a rule against elected officials teaching at public universities, whereupon the course was moved to the private Reinhardt College in Waleska the following year, funded by the Gingrich-related Progress and Freedom Foundation
Though material promoting the course promised it would spark a grassroots uprising that would help Republicans win a decisive “victory,” Gingrich followers who attended the lectures — or listened to them on tape — said that it was enlightening, not partisan. “It was not a political stump speech,” said Thomas Glanton of Dallas, Ga., a former state representative and longtime Gingrich supporter.
Gingrich’s opponent in the 1994 election was former “Dukes of Hazzard” TV star and two-time U.S. Rep. Ben Jones. Two days before election day, Jones handed an ethics complaint to the House committee, objecting to Gingrich’s use of charitable donations to fund the college course. The ensuing investigation took more than two years.
In 1997 the House Ethics Committee dismissed all but one of the 84 charges and left it up to the IRS to investigate the remaining charge: that he violated the law by using tax-exempt donations to fund a politically-motivated activity. By 1999, when the IRS determined that Gingrich did not break tax law, he was already out of office.
Speaking on CNN last month, Gingrich said he had been “exonerated” of the charges and characterized the $300,000 fine as a “reimbursement” for the costs of the investigation.
“They didn’t find him guilty of a durn thing,” said Mel Steely of Carrollton, Gingrich biographer and former staff member, who decries what he calls Romney’s misleading ads. “You can’t turn the TV on without this terrible onslaught against Gingrich. It’s just unrelenting.”
However, House committee members wrote in the final report that Gingrich’s “misleading statements” unnecessarily prolonged their ethics investigation. According to the report, a letter from Gingrich in October 1994 stated that GOPAC paid for some of the costs of running the course, but letters sent that winter and the following spring claimed that GOPAC was not involved.
Gingrich agreed to the fine, admitted wrongdoing and confessed to supplying the committee with inaccurate information. He wrote at the time: “I brought down on the people’s house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government.”
Few people will remember the details, said Thomas Hollihan, author of “Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns and the Media Age,” and a professor of media and politics at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. But their forgetfulness won’t necessarily work to Gingrich’s advantage.
By replaying the most damaging news reports on the incidents, the Romney ads obscure other developments that might serve to mitigate the charges, he said.
The ads also fail to capture the bitterly partisan atmosphere of the era, said Gingrich supporter Elizabeth Klemman of Augusta. Democratic anger against the newly-victorious Republicans was focused on Gingrich, she said. “People who had so much power had to relinquish it, and they didn’t do it gracefully,” she said. “It was a witch hunt.”
But Jones, who ran unsuccessfully against Gingrich, said Gingrich himself was responsible for some of the most strident language of the time. “He perfected the politics of personal destruction,” Jones said.
Schnur, the political analyst, said the Gingrich campaign can survive the issue, but that it distracts from his message. “‘Innocent on all charges’ is a legitimate defense,” he said, “but it’s not much of a bumper sticker. Even though he’s got a good answer, he’s still talking about what Romney wants him to be talking about.”
Grudgingly.
Amazing ain’t it?
“Although he was not found guilty on any of the 84 charges....”
The sentence should have ended right there.
The problem is, the voting public won’t care or read any of the facts.
Headlines is all they will see, or care about.
Not only that. But even though Newt was ‘exonerated’ of all charges, the fact that there were charges at all is all they need to know to decide not to vote for him.
People really are ‘sheep’ and need a ‘sheppard’ to lead them and a ‘dog’ to round them up.
As far as Romney’s concerned, he has them both covered.
Maxine Waters’ Ethics Trial Stalls. Again. (Who Is Surprised?) | July 23, 2011 | Patrick Richadson
Waters threatens to sue the House Ethics Committee for mishandling her case.
It’s notable that Waters is not asking for the case to be dismissed on the merits, but only because she claims she can no longer get a fair trial.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said in an interview that he inserted the provision for minority banks to protect OneUnited — because it is based in his state.
The provision sought by Waters — and inserted by Frank — told the Treasury Department that it should consider — for bailout money — banks that had an asset size of $1 billion or less, and whose size dropped to a lower range because they owned devalued preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The only bank that language would affect was OneUnited.
Waters is accused of using her influence to gain special treatment for Massachusetts-based bank OneUnited, which received $12 million in bailout funds. Changing a law was required in order to get them the money. Her husband, former Ambassador Sidney Williams, owned more than $350,000 in stock in the bank, and had also been a board member.
Rep. Maxine Waters wants ethics charges dropped
Citing “gross misconduct,” the lawyer representing Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) is asking the House Ethics Committee to dismiss all charges against his client.
In a letter addressed to the chairman of the House Ethics Committee, Republican Jo Bonner of Alabama, and the committee's top Democrat, Linda Sanchez, Waters' attorney Stanley Brand cited internal documents showing a close relationship between two former committee lawyers in the case and Republican committee members, saying “any further action by the committee would be “irremediably tainted and without legal foundation.”
Rep. Waters is a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee. The committee alleges that she tried to obtain a federal bailout for a minority-owned bank where her husband is an investor.
“Based on the facts of the case and the record of committee misconduct, the only remedy that vindicates the principals of the quasi-judicial functions of the committee is immediate dismissal with prejudice. No other remedy exists to cure this misconduct,” Atty. Brand wrote.
Rep. Waters has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, saying she had no role in the Obama administration's decision to bail out Boston-based OneUnited Bank. The congresswoman's husband, Sidney Williams, owns stock in the bank, and his investment was in danger of becoming worthless during the near-financial collapse of late 2008.
OneUnited received $12 million in bailout money in December 2008. But Treasury Department officials have told House investigators that Rep. Waters was not involved in that decision.
Rep. Waters contended she had supported legislation to help all troubled, minority-owned banks like OneUnited—and specifically those, like OneUnited, that were hurt by their investments in the then-collapsing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Atty. Brand said internal documents showed that the two former lawyers regularly corresponded exclusively last year with Rep. Bonner, then the ranking Republican and now the ethics chairman.
The two lawyers, C. Morgan Kim and Stacy Sovereign, were suspended last year by the previous Democratic chairman, Zoe Lofgren of California. Neither accepted Atty. Bonner's offer earlier this year to reinstate them.
The committee had charged Rep. Waters with violating House rules and was ready to begin a proceeding on her conduct late last year, but the case was sent back for further investigation after the controversy erupted over the conduct of the two lawyers.
Atty. Brand said in his statement that if there is prosecutorial misconduct in a criminal case, a judge would usually dismiss the charges. He also said the case was flawed.
“Given that both current members and staff are implicated in these documents, any other suggested remedy would lack legal credibility and would confirm an unprecedented level of bias against my client,” Atty. Brand added.
Meanwhile ethics watchdogs are calling on Rep. Bonner to step down as chairman of the House Ethics Committee—at least temporarily—for his role in the ongoing turmoil over Rep. Waters' case.
“I think there needs to be an investigation into the whole matter, including Mr. Bonner's role and that Mr. Bonner should step aside during the course of that investigation,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
“If Mr. Bonner is found to have broken the committee's rules, he should be sanctioned by the full House.”
2 House ethics attorneys suspended (includes lead attorney on Maxine Waters case)
Blake Chisam, the chief counsel and staff director for the ethics panel, initially sought to fire Kim and Sovereign on Nov. 19, but was unable to do so.
It is unclear if the decision to place Kim and Sovereign on paid leave was related to the Waters’ case or another matter, although they were placed in that status on the same day that Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), the chairwoman and ranking member of the committee, announced the Waters’ trial was delayed. The committee announced that it had new information, including e-mails from Mikael Moore, Waters' chief of staff, that would have an impact on the Waters’ matter.
.
All based on a college course Newt was teaching.
Newt has a Ph.D. in History, is well-qualified to teach in any college.
Our red diaper newspaper actually striving for fair and balanced. A first in my memory.
“Our red diaper newspaper actually striving for fair and balanced”
Not exactly. The title should read Gingrich Ethic’s Charges Dropped”(or disproven, etc.)
If one is only scanning the rag, it just brings up the fact of ethics charges being brought against him.
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.