Skip to comments.Let’s demystify Newt’s ethic charges.
Posted on 01/25/2012 4:25:27 PM PST by Vendome
What follows is an article I am writing to dispell the myth's being bandied about by some very large liars regarding the Ethics complaints Newt was charged with in the 90's.
I have sourced the material.
It is a bit long.
The formatting is for people with a short attention span and those who like to read.
Lets demystify Newts 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 Theres no there there in regards to ideas.
Mitt aint 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.
Mitts lying, Christie doesnt 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 1st 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:
Having no luck in convicting Newt on the 1st 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 Im not sure they didnt actually feel some sense of empowerment for all their losses.
But they were and are still losers with no conscience. Thats 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 Clintons 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."
Thats it? Thats 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." Thats 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 cant 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:
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 paras #2 and #6) (If you want to read the final House report you can find it here in PDF its only 137 pages
You couldnt seriously charge him with anything serious enough to even get him Censured. What is a reprimand anyway? Dont 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):
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 couldnt seem to be reported on.
Further, anything that might have been questioned from an ethical point was pre-cleared with the Ethics Committee
So in the end we have a bumper sticker for Gingrichs opponents:
Got Newt Nope..
Just this lousy T-shirt
Yours is good too because it has source-material links.
So will Slick Willard apologize for saying he resigned in disgrace? My source say no.
I completely forgot to attribute the reason I wrote this in the style I chose was this article.
It was beyond great but maybe a little long for many people.
Not that mine is much better. I just hope the style makes the meat of it quicker reading and comprehension.
He’ll smile and tell you take your question up with Nancy “She has some information that maybe you or I don’t”...
Blah, Blah, Blah....
BTTT ... should we write a ‘cliffnotes’ version?
Thanks for your contribution to the truth, Vendome!
You beat me to it. My link is in Post #9. Good Job!
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.
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 wasnt fully complete in its response to a demand by the Ethics Committee and Newt didnt read it before signing it and having it sent. He later corrected the error.
Tax fraud. The IRS didnt 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.
Thats it? Thats 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 thats 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
I wanted that loser to remain nameless.
There you go!
I’ll try that in a few days.
Had to git this off my desk and I kept researching and thinking “Hell, this actually a pretty cool story and someone should write a book”.
Shouldn’t be me though.
Vendom, Thank you for compiling and posting this information.
What I see is a direct parallel to what happened to Sarah Palin. There is always one little pin head sitting in some basement conjuring up lies and political subterfuge on those who they fantasize with some problem to justifie their demonization. The alcoholic Ben Jones of the world are the poster boys for these deviant individuals—like Joe McGinniss who wrote a ficticious attack on Sarah Palin.
Cross reference with the original article that started this out.
Please help get this information out to the American people.
Heaven knows the MSM is not going to. Use any or all links at various times.
Send it to your ping lists
Email to your list and ask each to send to their list. Place it on face book,
Copy it and distribute at rallies.
Send to your congresscritter, county chairperson, AND any media that your have an address for.
Know anyone in Florida, Nevada, Maine, Colorado ask them to post the links on their State’s message board.
We are needed to be active! It’s time the freepers drop the NEWTron BOMB!
Use the knowledge to spread truth and dispell the evil that was done to Newt, Sarah and all other targets of the left and MSM.
the media play the role of the Democrats subordinate facilitators in
the Delphi Technique;
The stage is now set for the rest of the agenda to take place.
At this point, the audience is generally broken up into discussionor breakoutgroups of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate facilitator.
Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints.
Good work, Vendome!
Thanks for the ping to this excellent information.
That’s what it was then. That’s what it is now.
You signed up today to ask about a non-existent “fine”?
Who are you, and how much does Mitt Romney pay you?
A couple of democrat party operatives just coincidentally overheard a conference call by Republicans, and leaked the ... recording (coincidentally they were recording) which was happening on cell phones but it somehow turned up on a police scanner?
Didn’t they end up prosecuted for wiretapping for that?
Trying to remember how that turned out.
For reference (thank you!)
From the article: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 paras #2 and #6) (If you want to read the final House report you can find it here in PDF its only 137 pages
Ultimately, the answer to your question is, "Because the net effect of the ethics' campaign against Newt was a successful 'borking'.". . . and the reason for that, ultimately, is the fact that an "objective" journalist and a "liberal" politician differ only in the hat that they are wearing and not at all in their politics.
. . . and the reason for that is that under the wire service journalism paradigm, journalists all hype each other and journalism as an entity - there is no ideological competition, editorial page opinion ghettos notwithstanding, permitted in the "borg" of journalism. Journalism is ultimately all about the self interest of journalists - and "liberal" politicians have no principle superior to that of going along and getting along with journalism (Republicans, OTOH, at least occasionally stand up for the targets of journalism's exploitation).
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.
Vendome did the work, I merely did an htnl drag and paste, lifting highlights from the excellent summary of the lengthy article (and extra data Vendome had at the ready) done by Vendome. Any credit is due to Vendome, not my simple copying.