Newt Calls The Kettle Black
Newt Calls The Kettle Black
Recently, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appointed himself the “arbiter of ethics.†Here is a sampling of what Gingrich had to say about Congressional ethics in the last few days:
“The system has grown, I think, so out of whack…And you now have this kind of really intermeshed relationship between incumbents, staffs and lobbyists in a way that I think is very unhealthy.†[Fox News, 1/5/06]
“I think that the Abramoff scandal is the latest signal of just how unhealthy and how dysfunctional Washington, DC, has become and the political process has become, the lobbying process.†[CBS, Evening News, 1/4/06]
“I think this whole system has grown, frankly, a little sick with insiders raising money for insiders to re-elect insiders to do favors for insiders.†[CBS, Face the Nation, 1/1/06]
How quickly we forget. Gingrich was beset by serious ethical problems as Speaker during the 1990s. Below is a summary of Gingrich’s actions that brought him a rare House rebuke and a $300,000 fine:
HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE PENALIZED GINGRICH $300,000 FOR THE “INTENTIONAL OR…RECKLESS†DISREGARD OF HOUSE RULES: “The House ethics committee recommended last night that House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) face an unprecedented reprimand from his colleagues and pay $300,000 in additional sanctions after concluding that his use of tax-deductible money for political purposes and inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented ‘intentional or . . . reckless’ disregard of House rules.†[Washington Post, 1/18/97]
GINGRICH USED CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS TO FUND PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES: “The heart of the ethics committee case against House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) involves his use of charitable organizations to subsidize his partisan political activities… Gingrich and his top advisers have tried repeatedly to use tax-deductible donations to help promote their political goals… [T]he availability of groups that could take tax-deductible donations was integral to his ultimately successful plan to wrest control of the House from the Democrats.†[Washington Post, 1/7/97]
GINGRICH’S LAWYER ADMITTED HIS CLIENT GAVE “GLARINGLY INCONSISTENT†STATEMENTS TO HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE: “In his final opportunity to defend his client Friday night before the House ethics committee, an attorney for Newt Gingrich conceded that the speaker had made ‘glaringly inconsistent’ statements to the panel’s investigative subcommittee about a politically oriented college course financed with tax-exempt funds.†[Washington Post, 1/19/97]
FULL HOUSE VOTED TO REPRIMAND GINGRICH; FELLOW HOUSE REPUBLICAN SAID HE HAD “EMBARRASSED THE HOUSEâ€: “The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.†The House voted 395-28 to approve the punishment. “Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House,†said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI). “If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment.†[Washington Post, 1/22/97; CNN.com]
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Tells you how far the GOP has fallen.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:23 pmI guess Hillary's rubbed off on him a little more than we thought!
I don't trust him one bit - he's getting ready for a power grab. In my mind there's no integrity to anything he says and everything he says should be viewed suspiciously.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:25 pmI guess he'd know.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:25 pmGingrich recently said, I believe, that he thought the Democrats in power were more corrupt than the Republicans in power when refering to the Abramoff scandal. What a joke.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:28 pmI'm not impressed. It took me all of 15 seconds to find this (quoted in its entirety):
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/03/gingrich/?pid=2761&cob=home
IRS clears Newt Gingrich's college course
By Brooks Jackson/CNN
February 3, 1999
Web posted at: 11:43 a.m. EST (1643 GMT)
WASHINGTON (February 3) -- The Internal Revenue Service Wednesday cleared former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of an alleged tax law violation in connection with a controversial college course he taught.
After considering the matter for three and a half years, the IRS issued a "technical advice memorandum" finding no violation of tax laws in the use of a tax-exempt entity to sponsor Gingrich's course, "Renewing American Civilization."
Gingrich began the course in 1993, before Republicans won control of the House and made him speaker. Gingrich's lectures were videotaped and widely distributed.
Democrats said it was a campaign gimmick and filed ethics complaints accusing him of illegal use of tax-exempt funds for political purposes. A tax expert hired by the House Ethics Committee said the course violated tax laws, and in 1997 Gingrich agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for making misleading statements to the ethics panel and failing to seek better legal advice before using tax-exempt money for the course.
As it turned out, the course was legal after all. The IRS found that the sponsoring organization, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, "did not serve the private interests of Mr. Gingrich" or Republican organizations.
The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. "The ... course 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."
The IRS memorandum was released by the Progress and Freedom Foundation along with a statement by its president, Jeff Eisenach. "This audit took too long and cost too much," he said.
Later,
January 11th, 2006 at 5:31 pmKick Some Ass
January 11, 2006
Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleads guilty. Tom DeLay is removed as Republican Leader. Every day we hear about some new congressional scandals. But there is no real action by Congress to stop this corruption. The bottom line is: Some one need to light a blow torch up Congress’s ass. The scandals are slimy but it’s an opportunity to push some real dammed reforms are real. It's ‘bout time Congress hear that we Americans want a real plan to enforce ethics rules and rein in these sleazy lobbyists. And the business of Congress just can't go forward until we can kick its ass in gear. The recent scandals have opened a hornet nest of opportunity to pass some reforms. Leaders are going to try to pass something so they can say they've dealt with the problem. The question is, will it be tough or just business as usual? A real anti-corruption agenda with teeth would do something like this : start enforcing ethics rules and punishing violators—Congress has proven they can't police themselves; shine some light—real transparency and reporting so that we find out who is meeting with whom; get serious about public financing of elections. But right now Congress thinks it can get away with corruption. The DeLay, Abramoff and other scandals were ignored by the neutered House Ethics Committee. Why? Because a new and independent ethics enforcement entity with teeth is badly needed. Thanks to the Republicans this widespread corruption has real-world implications for ordinary Americans: higher prescription drug prices, high gas prices, no health insurance, bigger deficits, and getting our veterans killed for nothing in that Big Fat Lie known as the Iraq war. Passing a big ethics and lobbying reform plan is the first thing that Congress need. No renaming dammed post offices. No stupid picayune regulatory changes. Just stop this goddamned corruption.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:34 pmRemind me again--Who was Newtie bonking while the repukes were leading the country through a multi-million dollar expose of a blue dress?
January 11th, 2006 at 5:35 pmCicero,
While the IRS later cleared Gingrich of any criminal charges in the case, the House Ethics Committee hit him with the $300,000 penalty in part for the "glaringly inconsistent" statements he made in defense of his actions during their inquiry. That is why the House - for the first time in its history - voted 395-28 to rebuke a sitting Speaker for ethical violations.
Payson
January 11th, 2006 at 5:40 pmFrom Cicero's link:
"Cole said he had concluded that Gingrich had violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. He said the committee members were reluctant to go that far in their conclusions, but said they agreed Gingrich was either "reckless" or "intentional" in the way he conducted himself.
Try again troll. And try sticking around, instead of posting and running like a coward. No, we won't visit your crappy blog.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:41 pmOops, I hope I didn't annoy him - he might try to make a federal case out of it!
January 11th, 2006 at 5:45 pmC'mon Cicero, your link says "Cole said he had concluded that Gingrich had violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him.
So, how about the lying? Tell us how his lying was different than Clinton's. Or quit posting crap.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:49 pmdano347 says:
"No, we won’t visit your crappy blog."
Some one here did, from 65.199.13.# at 5:36:37 pm?
Was that you dano? That's OK, I won't tell anyone you've been by.
Later,
January 11th, 2006 at 5:51 pmIsn't "Mr. Ethics" Newt the same guy that had his 1st wife served with divorce papers while she was undergoing chemo for cancer? Ya can't put a price on that kind of class.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:57 pmdano347 also says:
"From Cicero’s link: ..."
and
"C’mon Cicero, your link says ..."
Err, no, it doesn't. You are referring to the first link that Payson put up in the story, not me. My link points to the CNN story that shows that Gingrich did NOT violate federal tax law.
If Cole was wrong about the tax law violation, could he not also have been wrong about Gingrich supposedly lying, as well?
But don't worry, dano, I won't try to block you from stopping by my blogsite. Heck, if you've got one too, let us know, I'll stop by yours and take a look.
Later,
January 11th, 2006 at 6:02 pmwell we got 114 now to impeach Blair we need 200 gonna be here soon ...the link in the chain is gonna break ...How you americans getting on with bush impeached ...can i track progress anywhere like this link
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29437&SESSION=875
January 11th, 2006 at 6:06 pmI wonder how all of the anti-commie republicans like the fact that so many of their boys are carrying water for communist china?
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002264.htm
Here's a little excerpt:
I bet a bigot like you I-RIGHT-I hates chinese commies based on your earlier posting today. So my question is why so many rightwingers seem so connected to commies that you won't even investigate those connections? It would explain why you've allowed 2/3 of a trillion dollars of chinese investments in american treasuries, while you guys talk about irresponsible tax breaks on american businesses who then turn around and invest that money in china. To quote seinfeld, 'what's up with that'? Is it just you guys are greedy, or is it you're greedy and stupid? Inquiring minds would like to know.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:41 pmRightPunch: right on. The Chinese are buying up everything American that they can. We owe them billions and they are the fastest growing economy. The right-wing shills turn the other way and will take yen or dollars. most of our corporations are beset with greed and avarice. We can only hope for impeachment. Repugs do not want investigations. They will be shown for the clowns they are.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:57 pmThis thread reminds me of how McCain now talks about ethics as an arbiter, even though he was one of the Keating 5 S&L scandal culprits! It's just more republican criminality and hypocritical public pandering. It's a disgrace to watch.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:08 pmI can't believe that Payson missed one of Mr. Congressional Ethics (Newt Gingrich) greatest charges of unethical behavior.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but remember Newt going after Clinton over the Lewinsky Affair while he himself was diddling one of his clerks, Callista Bisek, who was a gal twenty-three years his junior? Then, when news out from under his own desk about the affair, Mr. Newt "Hypocrit" Gingrich dumps his second wife, Marianne Ginther, and married the House clerk?
I mean, Marianne shouldn't have been surprised about his adultery and unethical behavior, back in 1981 he married her after divorcing his 1st wife while she was recovering from uterine cancer.
Hey, cicero. Is that the same unethical, rightwing, republican adulterer you are trying to defend here?
Good luck, pal.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:15 pmLet us not forget Newt's own attempt to publically take a 10 million bribe, from Rupert Murdock, disguised as an advanced royalty payment from two books Newt was supposed to write. Newt was forced to back out after even his fellow Republicans were forced to withdraw their support for his efforts. Later Newt took only royalties actually earned on the book sales. He made less than 1 million! Yet, in the beginning, he was going to get 10 million. That's 9 million short.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:26 pmMy link points to the CNN story that shows that Gingrich did NOT violate federal tax law.(...)
If Cole was wrong about the tax law violation, could he not also have been wrong about Gingrich supposedly lying, as well?
Comment by Cicero — January 11, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
So, he didn't violate tax laws. Unfortuately for you, that's not what the thread is about: It's about Gingrinch's of House ethics rules.
Furthermore, we don't need to worry about Cole being wrong or not:
In his final opportunity to defend his client Friday night before the House ethics committee, an attorney for Newt Gingrich conceded that the speaker had made "glaringly inconsistent" statements to the panel's investigative subcommittee about a politically oriented college course financed with tax-exempt funds.(...) The speaker in December admitted to having provided inaccurate information to the ethics panel. (...) [Gingrinch] told Cole last July that his intended use of the course was partisan. But he added, "As long as the course itself was nonpartisan . . . I don't believe I had an obligation to tell the Ethics Committee what my political strategies were."
Gingrinch admitted to willingly providing "inaccurate information". While what he did might not have been illegal, it was clearly unethical. That is the reason why he was reprimanded and ordered to pay a penalty.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:37 pmTypo. The post above should read: "Unfortunately for you, that’s not what the thread is about: It’s about Gingrinch’s violation of House ethics rules."
January 11th, 2006 at 7:38 pmNewit 'just send un-aborted kids to boys town'...Gangreen is like flushing and having it keep coming back up.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:52 pmIs this the same Newt that condemed Clinton for getting a spit shine but was later found committing adultery himself?
Is this the same Newt we're talking about?
January 11th, 2006 at 8:00 pmWhy does anyone even give the slimy cretin the time of day? This is the man who was married multiple times, was guilty of infidelity in each marriage, told his wife while she was in bed with cancer that he was divorcing her, was guilty of incredible lack of ethics and underhanded activity while in the House, and now he is given credibility for what?? He dubbed himself "arbiter of ethics" because of his experience in not having any?
January 11th, 2006 at 8:35 pmHe is despicable.
Like G. Gordon Liddy, Chuck Colson, Ollie North -- they are all ethically challenged, and today they are in positions of high regard with the equally ethically challenged conservatives.
Now that the middle class has been sold out and as more and more of us move into the unemployment lines and welfare roles, the government, who forced this, sell off of the American dream has also turned it’s back on it’s citizens. You know, the ones who can’t afford their medications, the one’s who can no longer pay the amount of taxes we used to support this country with, the ones who are thrown into the gutter as an expendable worthless commodity.
As we all know he who holds the note owns the property. Now that we as a country can no longer pay our bills and the ones we do pay are done so with monies LOANED to us by a government who’s standards of human decency is a bullet in the head, YES CHINA, that great communist country who’s soul goal is to smash and loot this country is now the new owner of the land we walk on (from the inside out as outlined in the communists strategy)
As he who holds the note owns the property .
January 11th, 2006 at 9:02 pmRe: #20
"Let us not forget Newt’s own attempt to publically take a 10 million bribe, from Rupert Murdock, disguised as an advanced royalty payment from two books Newt was supposed to write. ..."
And lets not also forget this book deal...
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/22/opinion/22FRI1.html
"The New York Times, December 22, 2000
Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal
We are sorry to see Hillary Rodham Clinton start her Senate career by selling a memoir of her years as first lady to Simon & Schuster for a near- record advance of about $8 million. The deal may conceivably conform to the lax Senate rules on book sales, though even that is uncertain. But it would unquestionably violate the tougher, and better, House rules, and it is an affront to common sense. No lawmaker should accept a large, unearned sum from a publisher whose parent company, Viacom, is vitally interested in government policy on issues likely to come before Congress — for example, copyright or broadcasting legislation."
Did Viacom bribe Hillary?
...
"The Senate will judge Mrs. Clinton's deal in the context of outmoded rules that, regrettably, still permit members to accept advance payments for their books provided they fall within "usual and customary" industry patterns. Mrs. Clinton held an open auction for her book, so the $8 million advance emerged from a process that presumably represented the industry's consensus about what the book would be worth. But Mrs. Clinton has a duty to reveal the entire contents of her contract so that the public and members of the Senate Ethics Committee can judge for themselves whether its terms fulfill her pledge to comply with existing Senate rules, inadequate though they are."
Did she ever reveal the details of the contract? I don't seem to recall...
Later,
January 11th, 2006 at 10:38 pmDo you ever hear this tinkling sound
January 11th, 2006 at 10:46 pmof mirrors crashing all around
Newt and that Damn Liberal Media...
January 11th, 2006 at 10:48 pmwait a tic
that cant be right then can it?
Newt and that Damn Neo-Con Media.
Now thats better
Did Viacom bribe Hillary?
Comment by Cicero — January 11, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
Maybe. Maybe not. How is this relevant to Newt Gingrinch pontificating about ethics?
Did she ever reveal the details of the contract? I don’t seem to recall…
Maybe. Maybe not. What does Hillary Clinton have to do with ethically-challenged Newt Gingrinch's hypocritical babble on ethics (or lack thereof) in Washington DC?
January 11th, 2006 at 11:23 pmNewt Gingrich is just getting payback on Tom Delay who stabbed Newt in the back to get him out of his Speaker of the House position! House Republicans are known to backstab their leaders if it gains themselves more power! Newt also knows about corruption, since he was involved in it > lol.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:29 pm"Cicero" – if you’re comparing yourself to Marcus T. Cicero, I’m afraid your oration skills fail to merit such comparisons. If, on the other hand, you chose the "Cicero" moniker to provide an ironic foundation from which to make humor, then I guess I get the joke.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:58 pm"Did Viacom bribe Hillary?"
One downside to the Republican Syndicate's bankrupting of our Treasury is the constraint it puts on them to investigate bogus Clinton charges. Back in the good old days, when Clinton's economic policies were putting people to work and giving us significant surpluses, there was plenty of taxpayer money ($70MM+) to waste on destroying the Clintons' reputation. Heck, we had 200 of Louie Free's FBI agents investigating Bill's willy trail in Arkansas....but, hey, what else would these agents have been doing? Tracking AQ?
So Bill leaves office with a 64% approval rating and we lose 3000 Americans and the WTC's on Bush's vacation/ watch....life's just not fair.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:05 amDon't forget where Gingrich got the $300,000 to pay the fines:
January 12th, 2006 at 1:20 amhttp://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/14/gingrich/
Rep. John Sweeney retreats, says DeLay-Hastert regime should remain in power but lower Republican life forms should be replaced.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:24 amDid Viacom bribe Hillary?
Did she ever reveal the details of the contract? I don’t seem to recall…
Later,
Comment by Cicero #27
Sissyro,
Find yourself a quid pro quo,
then inbred away you'll go...
I do not like Republiscams,
January 12th, 2006 at 8:14 amI do not like them Sam I am...
how are criminals like delay and gingritch even allowed to run for office let alone get elected by a majority...this country sucks more and more everyday...!
January 12th, 2006 at 8:32 amLOL, Newtie... let's HOPE he runs for Pres. in 08. Actually, I rue the day he ever got on to the national stage. I blame the Russians, if they hadn't shot down KAL007 killing Newtie's predecessor, Larry McDonald, we'd never be in this situation. Of course, if the Georgia Democratic party had come up with someone better than McDonald's ditzy wife to run for his seat, this might not have happened either. Oh, fate, you twisted sick bitch...
January 12th, 2006 at 8:47 amLOL
It's such a blast top come in here first thing in the AM and see the trolls get ripped a new one. They just get destroyed on multiple levels, not the least of which is TRUTH.
What a great way to start the day.
Keep it up, boys and girls! Wheee
January 12th, 2006 at 8:53 amThursday News Roundup...
- The NSA has told an ex-intelligence officer that he is not allowed to testify in front of Congress "because of the secrecy of the programs involved" [the always trustworthy Washington Times]. So he can't speak about the secret program......
January 12th, 2006 at 11:28 amThis is what I don't get, Newt Gingrich is one of the architects and partipants of the massive political corruption in the Republican party.
He has been appearing on news programs as if he is a credible source for anti-corruption. I'd laugh, but these days the corrupt rule the media and many minds are blocked by the radical right propaganda.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:01 pmThere is no one squeaky clean so I guess that means the ethics issue is off the table for the Donks? Fine, we will address the problem and make the point that the Donks for some reason don't feel the need to discuss it. I can hardly wait until we get to reprise Hillary Clinton's past ethical triumphs.
January 13th, 2006 at 10:12 am