Posted on 12/23/2011 3:44:52 PM PST by TBBT
LOL. Yeah, right. I guess he resigned because he wanted to spend more time with his family. This kind of revisionist history is what is wrong with the Newtbots. From a contemperaneous report:
Gingrich calls it quits--November 6, 1998.
"Today I have reached a difficult personal decision. I will not be a candidate for Speaker of the 106th Congress, Gingrich said in a written statement released Friday evening.
Gingrich told friends it is unlikely that he will return at all when Congress reconvenes in January, but is not ruling out that possibility altogether. Gingrich did say during a series of phone calls informing members of the Republican caucus of his decision that he will not serve out his full twoyear term in the 106th Congress.
Gingrichs move came as a shock, as the speaker had been fighting to keep his top job up until Friday afternoon.
Sources say Gingrich made the choice when he was told as many as 30 Republicans would refuse to vote for him on the floor of the House. Another close associate of Gingrich said the speaker did not want to be the center of attention and distract his party for the next two years.
The ethics investigations happened years before that and had nothing to do with it.
Years ago? The House voted on the reprimand on Junuary 21, 1997. The assertion that this reprimand did not contribute to Gingrich resigning from being Speaker and not running again for office doesn't pass the laugh test.
Nancy Pelosi was on the committee. He was reprimanded based on one trumped-up charge and voluntarily agreed to pay 300,000 to cover costs of the investigation. All the charge said was that he taught a college class that promoted Republicans. The IRS then investigated that charge and found Newt not guilty of anything.
The chairman of the committee was Nancy Johnson, a Rep and Ben Cardin was the ranking member. The vote was 7-1 against Gingrich with only Lamar Smith not voting for the reprimand.
"Moments after Cole spoke, Gingrich's lawyer, J. Randolph Evans, said Gingrich had agreed to the proposed punishment in the case. "The speaker himself has apologized to the subcommittee, to the House and to the American people," he said."
"Cole disclosed that in its original statement of alleged violations, the investigative subcommittee had charged Gingrich with three counts of violating House rules, two for having failed to seek proper legal advice on the tax laws and one for providing the committee with inaccurate information.
But Cole said committee members were anxious to bring the ethics case to a swift conclusion without a lengthy disciplinary hearing, which he said could have "put the House in some turmoil for up to six months." So the members encouraged him to enter into negotiations with Gingrich and his lawyers.
As a result of those negotiations, completed on Dec. 20, the three counts were combined into a single count of engaging "in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives." In return, Gingrich agreed to admit to the violations, and face a reprimand and the financial penalty."
The investigation was a political witchhunt. Of course everyone voted to reprimand him because you can never lose by accusing a congressman of corruption with the public, whether it’s true or not.
You must really have to do some mental contortions to describe this as a polticial witchhunt in a Rep controlled House and a Rep chairing the ethics committee. And the idea that 90% of Reps would vote "to accuse a congressman of corruption with the public, whether it’s true or not." is really laughable. Hell, the Dems stood by Clinton in the impeachment hearings in the House and we had a blue dress with a stain on it along with videotape of Clinton lying and the temporary suspension of his law license by a federal judge.
Newt Gingrich tries to rewrite history of his ethics scandal (Fact Checker biography)
Thank you for posting that..I was just get ready to go OFF on Kabar...lol. So little time..so much misinformation
it is YOU that is rewriting facts. There were 83 ethics charges DROPPED...THE LAST CHARGE was investigated by the irs and dropped. Even Clinton said Gingrich was right and you know that was a strain. Don’t know who you support but America needs NEWT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fact Checker is Democratic Party disinformation central.
You’ve been snookered!!
Can you please put in bold what was inaccurate in what I posted? Was it 1 year, 11 months, instead of 2 years? Whatever.
Exactly how does an ethics charge in January 2007 cause Newt to step down almost 2 years later? You can’t seriously be suggesting that? That’s more than a lifetime in politics, that’s about 10 generations. If it was going to cause him to step down, it would have happened within days or weeks.
We all know Republicans participated on the ethics committee. We all know how the establishment Republicans have treated Newt then and now. It doesn’t mean anything other than Newt stands up to the establishment, as he did when he defied Bush Sr.’s tax hikes.
The IRS said Newt wasn’t guilty of the IRS violations that the committee claimed he was. There was one other thing I forgot about where they found something inaccurate in some paperwork his lawyer submitted and that Newt signed. Big deal.
They attacked Sarah Palin in Alaska with frivolous ethics charges too. We all know the game. You’d have to be really gullible to fall for this stuff.
To run as a president is a whole different ball of wax than to run as governor.
He’ll know better for next time, if he runs.
No matter how you try to spin it, Newt was given a reprimand and a $300,000 fine. The ethics committee voted 7-1 supporting the charge and the House voted 395-28 supporting the reprimand and fine. Newt admitted to his guilt. Those are the facts.
You’re a stinking Obot who spreads lies and deceit. GO back to DU instead of here on Free Republc.
CWCT?
Campaign for a Working Connecticut (CWCT)?
You got the Cliff’s Notes on this? The bigger scandal is that the House wasted their time on this frivolous fishing expedition.
Unless you want Clarence the clown or 10,000 OWS’ers on the ballot, you have to have some standard that needs to be met to show that a candidate is serious about his intentions.
I don’t think 10,000 signatures is an undue hardship to obtain. Just have 20 people stand in front of malls and get 750 sigs a pice.
Pretty damn funny coming from someone from South Carolina. I would comment, but apparently nothing good or bad comes out that nondescript vanilla place. Sounds like you fit that bill too, so Texas doesn't need you anyway. You'd probably choke on BBQ sauce anyway.
I think 10,000 is arbitrary.
And, why should I have 20 people stand in front of a mall? And that won’t really work given the 400 per county rule, and then there’s the validity rule, too. A signature at a mall doesn’t necessarily equate to a valid signature, apparently.
And, if 1000 average people apply instead of 7 insiders, then America will probably be better off.
I swear I could take a random 550 registered voters from my tiny county of 28,000 and get a better run country than what the bluebloods are giving us now.
Governor McDonnell of Virginia is theoretically on every GOP candidate’s ‘short list’ for VP. He’s got huge popularity (heard today it’s “down” to 68%); his is a swing state; his state is in great shape compared to most of the the rest of the country. I dout he will be chosen in any case.
Governor McDonnell and the RPV hosted a MAJOR luncheon/fundraiser for Perry, and there was talk then of him running with Perry.
Don’t think for one second that any of that has A THING to do with the snafu that took place today.
Newt received his reprimand and fine on January 21, 1997. Newt announced he was stepping down on November 6, 1998. You made it sound as though this all took place long before his resignation, i.e., The ethics investigations happened years before that and had nothing to do with it. This simply is not true. It happened a relatively short time before his resignation and it had plenty to do with his "resignation" and challenge to his leadership.
We all know Republicans participated on the ethics committee. We all know how the establishment Republicans have treated Newt then and now. It doesn’t mean anything other than Newt stands up to the establishment, as he did when he defied Bush Sr.’s tax hikes.
LOL. So the vote of 395-28 with 90% of Reps voting to reprimand and fine Gingrich is just an establishment Rep conspiracy? Don't insult my intelligence with such nonsense.
The IRS said Newt wasn’t guilty of the IRS violations that the committee claimed he was. There was one other thing I forgot about where they found something inaccurate in some paperwork his lawyer submitted and that Newt signed. Big deal.
The IRS charge was handled separately and it was dropped with the IRS finding him not guilty. As far as the "misstatement by Newt's lawyer was concerned, the lawyer said that Gingrich reviewed everything. The lawyer resigned after Gingrich insinuated that it was the lawyer's fault.
"In addition to combining three counts into one, the committee altered an original charge dealing with the false information given to the panel to include language pointing out the role of one of Gingrich's attorneys in preparing the material. In addition, the word "knew" was dropped, making the charge read that Gingrich had submitted information that he "should have known" was false, blurring the question of whether he acted intentionally."
By Walking Out, Newt's Lawyer Is Crying 'Fire'
"Baran will not carry that can. "I wish to make clear that my firm did not submit any material information to the ethics committee without Mr. Gingrich's prior review and approval," he told The Associated Press. "I strongly believe that is the committee's view as well."
Baran's parting shot comes close to what the legal community calls a "noisy withdrawal," which lawyers can make only in the most blatant cases of misconduct by a client. Normally, when a lawyer drops a crooked client, he is supposed to say nothing that would hurt the defendant's interests.
They attacked Sarah Palin in Alaska with frivolous ethics charges too. We all know the game. You’d have to be really gullible to fall for this stuff.
Newt was given a reprimand and a fine with overwhelming bipartisan support. He was convicted and admitted his guilt. Comparing this with Palin is ridiculous. You really have to be in the tank for Newt to defend the indefensible. Charlie Rangel had more support than Newt.
Newt is no conservative and I am amazed at how the Newtbots are rallying to support someone who supports the nonsense of manmade global warming, amnesty, and the expansion of the Medicare program, prescription drugs. He is a Big Government REP like Romney. Do you recall how he supported Dede Sozzafava over a real conservative, Hoffman?
Just FYI, it’s 400 signatures per Congressional District (11) vs per county (95).
Yes it is arbitrary. Any number, even 1, would be arbitrary.
Standards of any kind are inherently arbitrary. When Ford does a recall because a certain percentage of car parts failed, that is also an arbitrary number.
But a quality candidate should be able to meet the standards that are set, if the standards are reasonable.
“You can’t handle the truth.” LOLOLOLOL!!!
T H E T R U T H
Newt Gringrich allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.
Under a Republican president, they [the Republican Congress] added over $3 trillion to the federal deficit, shunned conservative policy in favor of Beltway influence-peddling, and so damaged the GOP brand that we...lost the majority Gingrich had worked years to forge,..How much should I really care that Newt’s fabulous colleagues think his reemergence would be a disaster for Republicans? Lest these characters forget,...2010 was not a merit promotion; they [the Republicans] were the only alternative in town.
Indeed.
Wake up America!
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.