Sorry, just the way it is.
Posted on 02/07/2012 12:09:54 PM PST by SeekAndFind
First of all, what exactly were the charges against Newt? David Bonior brought 75 charges against Newt - and 74 of them were found to have NO MERIT WHATSOEVER. The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class "Renewing American Civilization" properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.http://www.gargaro.com/newtmoney.htmlThe first 'charge' from the ethics committee is that he "may have" violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.
The lectures never mentioned the words "Republicans" or "Democrats," and one entire session was spent praising FDR. Is that "partisan?" Not only has a former commissioner of the IRS has come forward and said that no tax laws were violated, but an Ethics Committee lawyer even gave approval for the class before Newt started it.
The second 'charge' from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, Newt provided false information to the committee. Do you know what this "false information" is?
Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to "Renewing American Civilization." He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide.But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions.So is this a big deal? Is this "lying to Congress?" What's funny is that the Ethics Committee itself approved the course Newt taught, the same course that started this whole "ethics violation" farce. Newt wasn't even paid for the course.
In any case, I am not getting into all the details of the whole ethics violation mess, and the incredible double standard shown, since that would warrant a separate web site. I just find it odd that the Ethics Committee turned around and slammed Newt with a $300,000 penalty for something that they had approved! In addition, if a reprimand was enough "punishment" for Barney Frank, who was charged by the same committee with fixing 30 parking tickets, and writing a misleading probation letter on behalf of child pornographer, cocaine dealer, male prostitute and lover Steven Gobie, why is Newt getting slammed with such a harsher penalty?
The only reason that Rep. David Bonior and other Democrats filed 75 ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich in the first place is because Newt filed and forced former Democrat Speaker Jim Wright to resign in 1988. The whole ethics violation farce was about nothing but revenge. Bonior and the Dems. wanted revenge for Jim Wright and for losing the House in 1994 and 1996.
And that is what the TRUMPED UP CHARGES concerned. I could care less what the "Ethics Committee" decided to charge him with, as if their motives were (or are today) pristine or driven by HONESTLY trying to monitor and sanction Congressional members for wrongdoing. As brought up with even Barney Frank, they do nothing to those who most deserve sanctions.
And yes, this is the SAME LIBERAL, David BONIOR who went with the likes of Jim McDermott of Washington to Iraq and denounced the United States.
1) House Ethics Committee found Gingrich violated House Ethics Rules.
2) Gingrich admitted he violated Ethics Rules and apologized.
3) House overwhelmingly voted to sanction Gingrich with censure and the payment of $300,000.00.
I’m sorry that you don’t like to read facts and mislabel them as ‘spin’.
The over 70 charges were trumped up and Newt was exonerated, of them all, regardless of the motivations of the “ethic’s committee” which tried so damned hard to throw more and hoped they’d stick.
The same thing happens to people who are accused and convicted of a crime, serve time, and then are later released because later evidence showed that they were innocent of the charges leveled against them.
Newt agreed to pay $300,000 for the investigational costs; the charge he agreed to was trumped up.
You attempt to slime him doesn’t work.
You post opinions, I post facts, simple as that. You are a typical, emotional person that can't handle the facts. Gingrich has a past and part of it is the facts I posted. Deal with it.
The following post is for the enlightenment and benefit of those who are ignorant as to the full and actual facts of the smear campaign waged against Gingrich in 1997 by the Democrats, the GOP-e, and the lame stream media when he was Speaker, and which continues today by....the Democrats, the GOP-e, and the lame stream media (i.e., Romney, McLame, Rove, Faux News, and, of late, Santorum), as it is evident these truths are lacking in your own posts:
With the charges against Gingrich megaphoned in the press, Gingrich and Republicans were under intense pressure to end the ordeal. In January, 1997, Gingrich agreed to make a limited confession of wrongdoing in which he pleaded guilty to the previously unknown offense of failing to seek sufficiently detailed advice from a tax lawyer before proceeding with the course. (Gingrich had in fact sought advice from two such lawyers in relation to the course.) Gingrich also admitted that he had provided "inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable" information to Ethics Committee investigators. That "inaccurate" information was Gingrich's contention that the course was not political -- a claim Cole and the committee did not accept, but the IRS later would. [see below]Of the 83 charges initialed leveled against Newt, he was charged with the 84th. However, an independent tax court found him not guilty of the 84th charge a couple years later. IN SUMMARY:In return for those admissions, the House reprimanded Gingrich and levied an unprecedented $300,000 fine. The size of the penalty was not so much about the misdeed itself but the fact that the Speaker was involved in it.
Why did Gingrich admit wrongdoing? "The atmosphere at the time was so rancorous, partisan, and personal that everyone, including Newt, was desperately seeking a way to end the whole thing," Gingrich attorney Jan Baran told me in 1999. "He was admitting to whatever he could to get the case over with."
It was a huge victory for Democrats. They had deeply wounded the Speaker. But they hadn't brought him down. So, as Bonior suggested, the [DEMOCRATS] sought to push law enforcement to begin a criminal investigation of Gingrich.
Nothing happened with the Justice Department and the FBI, but the IRS began an investigation that would stretch over three years.
THE I.R.S. INVOLVEMENT:
Unlike many in Congress -- and journalists, too -- IRS investigators obtained tapes and transcripts of each session during the two years the course was taught at Kennesaw State College in Georgia, as well as videotapes of the third year of the course, taught at nearby Reinhardt College. IRS officials examined every word Gingrich spoke in every class; before investigating the financing and administration of the course, they first sought to determine whether it was in fact educational and whether it served to the political benefit of Gingrich, his political organization, GOPAC, or the Republican Party as a whole.
[The I.R.S.] then carefully examined the role of the Progress and Freedom Foundation and how it related to Gingrich's political network....
[SeeGINGRICH WAS FALSELY ACCUSED & FULLY EXONERATED! ]
I.R.S. FINDINGS:
In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under then President Bill Clinton) concluded that Gingrich did not violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air “it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were wrong.”Eighty four (84) politically motivated ethics charges were filed against Newt when he was Speaker of the House regarding the use of tax exempt funds for a college course he taught titled “Renewing American Civilization.” Eighty-three (83) of the eighty-four charges were found to be WITHOUT MERIT AND DROPPED. The remaining charge had to do with contradictory documents prepared by Newt’s lawyer supplied during the course of the investigation. Newt took responsibility for the error and agreed to reimburse the committee the cost of the investigation into that discrepancy [$300,000.
I.R.S. CONCLUSION:
BOTTOM LINE: According to the IRS, Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme.
[See CNN: IRS Exonerated Gingrich in 1999 (and see Newt Gingrich Cleared! Now How About a Refund?
"Meaning the only thing he did "wrong" was screw with the mutinous committee toward the end of the witch hunt. He admitted that was wrong but I would have made them dread every moment they questioned me under these circumstances and I would have sent these Traitors on as many wild goose chases as I could think of.I couldn't have said it better myself.This entire band of RINO's knew from day one that they had absolutely nothing of substance against Gingrich and were only trying to turn up public pressure to get him out so they could go back on the take from lobbyist's and start spending more taxpayer money.
This entire event is a badge of honor for Gingrich, he fought the RINO's to the very end so nothing they did after his ouster can be connected to him in any way.
The 1998-2006 GOP House stands as a monument to what RINO's will do if given the purse strings and an example of just how far they will go to eradicate Conservatives from their midst. The RINO's own the current GOP reputation because they earned it, the witch hunt of Newt Gingrich in 1998 marked the beginning of the RINO stampede and it ended in disgrace as Nancy Pelosi took the gavel in 2006. Those RINO's left the GOP in shambles and with no credibility left as small government defenders of rugged individualism."
Has there been a POTUS named Rick?
...
...
...
Wait, don tell me, I no, I no, yes ‘course, Rick Nixon!
What you are saying is simply a lie. Criticize Newt for lots of genuine silly things he has done, but saying he did something wrong in the matter of House ethics you are claiming is just untrue.
Quote from ‘Carry me Back’, post #48:
“RS is another liberal in the contest to keep a real conservative from winning that would be Newt imo. RS wouldn’t be any better than Obama.”
I simply agreed with the above statement. I did not originate it. To understand why I agree, well, the following explains it.
One of the advantages of being old enough to remember past elections, is one recognizes a dangerous political situation when it develops. Santorum is one of those. If you think he will save the nation, think again.
WE NEED TO REMEMBER Santorum received more campaign funds from lobbyists in 2006 than any other member on The Hill at that time, even more than John Murtha and Tom Delay ever did when they were in office.
Sen.Santorum met regularly with K Street lobbyists every Tuesday morning, loves earmarks for special interests and still defends them today. Read that last part again: he acknowledges the spending with NO apologies.
He believes it is fine to keep collecting federal tax dollars to give to Congress to determine what lobbyist-driven projects the Congress would like to provide funds for back in the states.
The U.S. is SIXTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in debt, and when Sen.Santorum was still in Congress, he was one of those who helped drive some of that debt up. His constituents turned him out of the Senate for supporting Arlen Specter’s run for the Senate.
This situation reminds me why so many people voted for Gov.James Earl Carter in 1976. He seemed so good compared to the Republicans tainted by Watergate, a social conservative, a Christian with family values who taught Sunday school. Four years later he left office branded the worst president ever to live in the White House.
It is important to weigh a candidate’s whole record against what he claims today. We vote for the package, not the single issue when we elect someone.
We definitely need someone to save the nation; we need someone who promises to change the way Washington has been working. We need a leader.
RS’s record indicates he is not that leader.
Personally, I support Newt a little more, but pretending Rick is to the left of Romney simply isn't true. Demonizing him as some kind of eevil closet liberal doesn't help either. I understand the flaws of both, and unfortunately we don't have much of a choice, considering the other choice would Romney or Paul.
If Santorum wins, I'm supporting him and could do it enthusiastically.
I deal with facts. Santorum is not the conservative everyone believes.
Four years ago I watched Americans become excited over the hopey-changey guy from Chicago. My research indicated he wasn’t just a liberal but a Marxist-Leninist and a Muslim.
My findings on Santorum aren’t quite so dramatic, but folks should stand back and see the whole Rick Santorum picture.
We must change the way Washington does business. I’m highly doubtful Santorum will do that.
Newt has no way to a win. Too many people don’t like him and have not forgotten why. He reminded them with his whine over the weekend.
There is nothing about Newt in the last 10 years that says he is not big government. But I don’t think that is the only reason why so many do not like him.
It is character and he hasn’t given anyone any reason to believe that he isn’t an arrogant and self puffed up ass.
Sorry, just the way it is.
All you’re saying is opinion.
Provide facts.
To say Santorum doesn't lean conservative is simply untrue.
I understand Rick's flaws, it's why I don't support him as my first choice, but you are doing him an injustice by painting him as a liberal, or somehow unfit. I have no problem if you don't support him, but don't paint him as something he's not.
What more do you need? Did Newt sweep yesterday? That was a message. People want a person with good personal character because Obama has no good character. Romney and Newt were both losers.
Well, so was Trump.
That is good.
Sorry, just the way it is.
You are kidding me. Why back a guy that is sure to lose? It is Santorum Country. We want a credible guy who is of good character.Santorum isn’t perfect, but it doesn’t take a lot when Newt is in the picture.
ROTFLMAO did Newt win big yesterday? uh, no.
If Santorum wins, I'm supporting him and could do it enthusiastically.
My sentiments, exactly, with a p.s.: I can vote FOR either Newt (my preference) OR Santorum; whereas, in the past, I could neither vote for McLame or Rinomey, and didn't.
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.