Posted on 01/24/2012 10:04:04 PM PST by County Agent Hank Kimball
Newton Leroy Gingrich!
GO NEWT!
This deserves a top-of-the-main-page link! (just my 2 cents)
What think ye?
Ping for Tomorrow
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."
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.
House Rep’s statement on Newt Gingrich’s Non Fine...
Numerous statements from elected officials and other individuals associated with the Committees 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 Speakers 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. Gingrichs 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 Speakers $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.
Supporters of Newt should start a “Newt wants his $300K back!” campaign.
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!!!
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.
ping
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.
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.
Bump!
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.