Posted on 12/18/2011 12:34:01 PM PST by EveningStar
GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich said Congress has the power to dispatch the Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to apprehend a federal judge who renders a decision lawmakers broadly oppose...
Gingrich made his remarks during a Sunday appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” where he defended his position that the president has the power to eliminate federal courts to disempower judges who hand down decisions out of step with the rest of the nation...
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Newt cannot “release the reports” due to confidentiality issues. Or would you have him violate his contracts with his clients? Sure you’d be very understanding about that if he did, right?
Newt was engaged in legal free enterprise and non-disclosure agreements are among the basic elements of consulting contracts. The parties involved are legally prevented from revealing the kind of information you demand.
some of the environmental rulings that seize property rights from homeowners, prevent building on owned sites, interfer with water rights are so extreme and unconstitutional...who is protecting the American citizens from judicial dictatorship? we do have a balance of powers and their job is to interpet the law NOT write it via their rulings.
Newt on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae...MUST WATCH..the truth..http://newtgingrich360.com/video/newt-in-08-on-consulting-fannie-and-freddie?xg_source=msg_mes_network
How do you know that? Have you seen the contracts?
Newt ought to release what he can -- billing procedures and rates come to mind -- and explain in detail why he can't release what he can't and petition Freddie for waivers.
Note that Freddie is a GSE.
Newt ought to release what he can and explain why he can't release what he can't.
He can certainly make public his company's standard rates and billing procedures.
But you raise a real interesting question as to why a GSE should bind a consultant to a non-disclosure agreement, especially on governmental issues. What exactly would they be trying to protect? What is the competition that would not want to give an advantage?
I “know” that because (1) confidentiality is standard in most consulting contracts and (2) Newt cited the confidentiality clauses when speaking generally about the work.
Now, could Newt be lying? Sure, but there is no evidence of that. Or do you have some?
“Newt Gingrich said Congress has the power to dispatch the Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to apprehend a federal judge who renders a decision lawmakers broadly oppose...”
Didn’t Congress just pass a law that says the president can just call them terrorists and send them to Guantanamo?
Michele, OTOH, looks more and more like a sneak.
I guess I don’t understand your confusion so am confused myself. LOL
He said...
“The only thing I ever wrote for Freddie Mac that was ever published basically said, as part of it, they need more regulations. The only time I’ve talked to the Congress or to the Republicans in Congress was in July of 2008. And it’s actually in the New York Times at the time, and I said, ‘Vote against the bailout.’ I said, ‘Do not help Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This is not something you should do.’”
So he is saying his Companies, he created, did the consulting?
What my question would be is what did the people from the companies tell Fannie and Freddie and did Fannie and Freddie listen?
Do it now. If he should become the nominee it's not going away in the general unless he starts taking these steps.
His relationship with Freddie Mac and the way he has dealt with it is one of the big reasons I crossed him off my list.
Newt gave an answer and I'm not calling him a liar but I would like more specifics.
Freddie was giving an organization that Newt ran money for something. I cannot believe it gave $1.5 million for just one article.
I think when I calculated the amount per year (according to total $ vs years covered), it came to about $166K per year.
If the concern is about the amount of money paid per year, I suspect Newt could have, or may have, done a couple/three speeches/fundraisers a year and easily have exceeded $200K per year.
Which would have, over the years stated, exceeded the "huge" sum of $1.6M reported breathtakingly by the media.
As to the issue of what the money paid for ..... I'm still interested in reading anything available on that issue.
He has said quite a bit. Some of it is upthread.
So you’ve crossed Newt off based on LSM mantras about Freddie, an organization he recommended needed MORE regulation and should not be bailed out? What, he should have recommended the opposite?
The level of discourse on the part of Newt bashers on this thread is convincing me to vote FOR Newt.
PS Every consulting agreement I have signed explicitly includes NOT disclosing billing rates except as required by law (eg total amount for taxes and the like). Most have included a clause about not even disclosing who I was doing the consulting for or the existence of the consulting. And I have signed dozens.
Your missing the point. He’s not replacing anything just removing judges that are activists and who ignore the constitution to suit their own agendas.
If you don’t think there’s a problem today with judicial activism then I guess you wouldn’t get the point anyway.
JB
OHhh ok.:)
http://newtgingrich360.com/video/newt-answers-in-depth-questions-concerning-freddie-mac
Check this video out.. (if you haven’t already)
Gingrich Group should have a standard billing rate that is not part of any non-disclosure agreement. Further, it should be able to reveal how it billed ( hours, flat fee, retainer whatever)
Further, it should be able to reveal how many persons worked on the consulting.
Further, Newt should say why GSE's should be able to bind consultants on governmental policy to non-disclosure agreements. What IP are they trying to protect? What competitors do they want to keep from getting a strategic advantage?
Sorry if these really-not-so-tough questions for a guy who wants to be be prez bothers you.
If you'd been paying attention you'd know he already has.
you raise a real interesting question as to why a GSE should bind a consultant to a non-disclosure agreement
I'm not a government lawyer but NDA's seem to be standard boilerplate in consulting contracts (according to my wife, a consultant). I'm sure you can research that question on your own.
I agree with you and I haven’t seen a negative attitude coming from you on this issue, you want the facts.
It sounds like Newt will be getting all your questions answered by the video I posted for you. (Or from the organization that has specific financial information.)
There have been around 8 federal judges impeached. We all know of cases the 9th circuit has ruled on that infringed on property owners rights. We know about the EPA and at times the federal courts rule in their favor which has an adverse affect on ranchers, farmers, cattlemen, loggers, fishermen, etc.
Example..http://www.yumasun.com/articles/owl-61508-federal-habitat.html
A federal appeals court has upheld the decision to designate 8.6 million acres in the Southwest – including nearly 4 million acres in Arizona – as critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday rejected arguments by the Arizona Cattle Growers Association that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service improperly designated some areas where no owls are found as “occupied.’’ The judges said nothing in the law requires that a species be continuously present in an area to have it designated as occupied.
Separately, the judges rejected arguments by the cattle growers that the federal agency did not properly consider economic impacts of the listing.
The decision is a victory for the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity which had pushed the Fish and Wildlife Service for the habitat designation in the first place and intervened to defend it when the cattle growers sued.
C.B. “Doc’’ Lane, spokesman for the cattle growers, said the ruling won’t have any immediate impact on the activities of his organization’s members.
But he said it sets a bad precedent. Lane said it essentially gives federal officials carte blanche to designate any area they want as critical habitat when they lack scientific evidence to outline a more specific area.
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.