Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Newt Gingrich Exonerated and Proven Innocent


Newt Gingrich is probably thanking Mitt Romney for twisting the facts about Newt's time in Congress. Because of the subtle lies that Romney told, people are coming out of the woodwork to clear Newt's name.

I heard this on the Tom Sullivan radio show today. He devoted a good segment of time to reading through the Washington Examiner story by Byron York. As stated, York had written a piece on Newt Gingrich's innocence long before the internet made it easy to clink on a link to the past. So York dug through his past writings and put this together:
The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich's former political opponents.

The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.

Back in January 1997, the day after Cole presented his damning report to the Ethics Committee, the Washington Post's front-page banner headline was "Gingrich Actions 'Intentional' or 'Reckless'; Counsel Concludes That Speaker's Course Funding Was 'Clear Violation' of Tax Laws." That same day, the New York Times ran eleven stories on the Gingrich matter, four of them on the front page (one inside story was headlined, "Report Describes How Gingrich Used Taxpayers' Money for Partisan Politics"). On television, Dan Rather began the CBS Evening News by telling viewers that "only now is the evidence of Newt Gingrich's ethics violations and tax problems being disclosed in detail."

The story was much different when Gingrich was exonerated. The Washington Post ran a brief story on page five. The Times ran an equally brief story on page 23. And the evening newscasts of CBS, NBC, and ABC -- which together had devoted hours of coverage to the question of Gingrich's ethics -- did not report the story at all. Not a word.

Gingrich himself, not wanting to dredge up the whole ugly tale, said little about his exoneration. "I consider this a full and complete vindication," he wrote in a brief statement. "I urge my colleagues to go back and read their statements and watch how they said them, with no facts, based on nothing more than a desire to politically destroy a colleague."

Since CNN is hosting the next Florida debate, it would be timely and appropriate if they showed this clip from 1999 below:

45 comments:

leighrow said...

Wow..I wonder why Newty doesn't get his $300,000 back if he is so innocent and I wonder why there were boatloads of people who worked with your dear sweet Newty who confirmed that he was fined for ethics violations. I believe the violation that stuck was him misrepresenting the facts to Congress......some people would call that lying.

Anonymous said...

Anon, you are not helping yourself or anyone else one here.

I see that TC is determined to believe the best of Newt Gingrich but not Mitt Romney. That is her choice. For me, the fact that a man can behave so dispicably in his personal life certainly does not bring me to trust him MORE in his professional one.

AZ

Anonymous said...

I meant "on" here, not "one." oops!

AZ

DanL said...

TC, I'm glad that you've finally picked your candidate and I'm glad that you prove that family values really don't matter to you.

Anonymous said...

Texas, well, at least now we know who's side you're on! I'm glad you're at least being honest about it now.

Although, I really don't see what you see in Newt. He goes against everything I thought you stood for.

It's hard not to agree with anon, that this is all about religion for you. After all, you're always promoting the crowd of Anti-Mormons who put on these sham pro-life events.

How's Newt working out for you so far? Today, he's having to defend himself by saying his sex was not as bad as Clinton's. (snicker snort) Between having to defend him on his 'Spanish language is the language of the ghetto', his lying ads which he has to pull, and his cheating on taxes, you're going to get a work-out trying to defend him. Good luck!

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Texas, since you're a Newt supporter now, I would like your opinion of Newt's introducer yesterday who said Mormonism is a cult, and that Mormons had death squads?

Sure love to hear your opinion on that, if you have the guts. Newt was not too concerned about it, because he said nothing. When you sign on to Newt, you get all the baggage, including things like this.

-Martha

TexasConservative said...

So let me get this straight:

Romney decides to attack Newt Gingrich and say that he resigned in disgrace. But then we find out, that Romney's statement isn't all that truthful.

Then we have Rightspeak and its Romney supporters attacking Newt, calling him all sorts of nasty names regarding his time as Speaker. But then we find out, that Newt was actually found innocent of violation of tax laws.

And the reaction to that is "Mormon Hater"

Ah, when given the facts about a candidate who is running against Mitt Romney-the attack line is bigotry and Mormon hater.

I think you need to find a new way of supporting Romney.

Calling undecided voters bigots and "Mormon haters" is no way to get them on your bandwagon.

If I do end up voting for Romney, it won't be because I all of a sudden became a "Mormon lover." It may be that Romney finally made the sale and won me over.

But with supporters like you Anonymous, it will be hard for Romney to do.

And for the record, for about the 100th time, I am not a bigot, never was a bigot, and do not care one way or another about ANY candidate's faith.

Can we move on from that nauseating attack now?

Anonymous said...

Looks like TC made up her mind...what a choice haha...

Anonymous said...

All this proves is that Newt can talk his way out of anything.

Newt is guilty as hell!

He is a crook. Plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

No one who pays $300,000 is innocent

Anonymous said...

Yeah he is innocent alright, thats why he paid a fine and was forced out.

BOSMAN said...

I guess that 80+% of those congressmen who served with Newt are all liars.

And just think, all it took was Byron york, to clear this all up.

TC, maybe you should send a link to your post to all those congressmen and congresswomen.

I'm sure they'd appreciate your efforts in clearing all this up.

leighrow said...

Newt,Clinton,TC and the Newt fan club are great wordsmiths......the next thing we will hear from Newt is his version of what the definition of "is" is.

Right Wingnut said...

It's very telling that only one MittHead defended TC over the vile attack from the anon in comment #1. These are not people of character we're dealing with here.

AJR disclaimer....however, even some of those are silent much too often.

nkmom said...

Martha, thanks for that tip regarding "Spanish is the language of the ghetto." I had not heard that but I am definitely interested in finding out about it and so will google it ... it also doesn't surprise me that Gingrich would say such a thing.

Anonymous said...

RW,

You are the king of profane language around here. You used profane language in retaliation against somebody who called you out when it the other day. Your profane language is way, way above the severity used in comment #1, and it's been more than once, twice, or three times....it's been many, many, many times.

Can only you use profanities, RW?

Stop it with the pious boloney, hollier than thou act.

Graham said...

Let me jump on the "I disagree, but not with the poster" wagon here. Lord knows I have issues with TexasConservative, but if this is true, then let it be true.

And let Gingrich release the ethics report.

On top of that, release the voting results to corroborate Ron Paul's claim re: whether Gingrich had enough support to remain speaker.

And if he was innocent the whole time, let him get his $300K back.

Let's see it happen.

It won't, ergo I remain skeptical.

Anonymous said...

Texas, If you are not anti-Mormon, then tell us how you feel about the pastor who introduced Newt by saying Mormonism is a cult, and that they had death squads. I asked you specifically, and you determined not to answer. That could lead be to believe that you have no problem with what the good pastor said.

I simply find it really strange that you close your ears to things like this coming from the campaign you support. Do you think Newt should have distanced himself from the pastor who said such vile things about Mormons? Do you believe the pastor? Inquiring minds want to know.

I really would like a clarification from you on this. And please stop pretending that you are considering Romney. What a joke. The only thing you've cared about on these boards for 4 years is dissing Romney.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

I also have to laugh at your line about Romney's 'lies'. Ha ha ha. So rich for a Newt supporter.

Texas, you really should get to know your candidate better.

-Martha

TexasConservative said...

Remember way back when Perry jumped into the race, and you Romney supporters ran attack pieces on Perry. I think I posted two pieces defending Perry on the lies that were being told about him. Even though I had stated that I was not supporting Perry-as I liked KBH in Texas-I still got attacked for defending Perry.

Same goes for me writing two pieces on Newt.

I am undecided. There are days that I lean Romney. But as I have said for years-I do not think that Romney has courage, nor political convictions. His timidity leaves me hesitant. Being an attack dog against an opponent is quite different than being courageous on issues and bills going through congress. Romney has a record of waiting too see how the winds are blowing to announce his decision on a lot of key issues we have had in the last several years.

There are days I lean towards Santorum. But I think he may "seem" too far right for independents and I am not sure if he can win in the general.

There are days that I lean towards Gingrich. But I do not like the "family picture" of the "Gingrich family" going up against the "Obama family".

So yes, same message as I stated pre-Iowa. I am deciding between three candidates.

I am undecided. I have until April to make that decision as our primary got pushed back due to re-districting.

But I can guarantee you that y'all calling me a bigot and a Mormon hater doesn't make me want to listen to your bandwagon call. Hard to jump on a bandwagon with people carrying signs calling you names. Not a good invitation that y'all have got going there.

Enough about me. I should not have clarified and rather just ignored your Anonymous friend. But I revealed where I stood and that is it for now.

Anonymous said...

Glenn Beck said today that he is getting death threats from Newt supporters and Paul supporters. But no from Romeny supporters. Lon

Anonymous said...

Oh, or Santorum either.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious if Texas Conservative would also go to such lengths to defend Charlie Rangel. Good old Charlie didn't even pay a fine nor did he resign. But Newt - who did pay a hefty fine and did resign is somehow not guilty? Interesting. Very interesting.

-Phil

newark hawk said...

As they used to say during President Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal: "IT'S NOT THE CRIME, IT'S THE COVER-UP".

Because of the cover-up, Gingrich resigned in disgrace, just like Nixon did.

The only difference is that Nixon would have a far better chance than Gingrich of defeating Obama in 2012, even from his grave.

Anonymous said...

Also note, that Newt admitted wrongdoing himself and it's still true that he was breaking house rules prior to the investigation. See here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm

Anonymous said...

Oh for pete sake, Texas, answer my question. Do you agree with the pastor yesterday calling Mormonism a cult, and having death squads? Do you think it was appropriate? Do you think Newt should have renounced the man?

Why don't you have the guts to answer a simple question?

And I very much doubt you have ever had even one day when you leaned Romney. LOL

-Martha

Anonymous said...

You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. TC thinks we are all stupid enough to be fooled all of the time.

Newt payed that 300k fine because he was innocent, right? And the House censured him 398-28 because there wasn't anything there.

As Charlie Brown said, "I don't mind your dishonesty, half as much as I mind your opinion of me. You must think I am stupid..."

DanL

Anonymous said...

Oh yes, and this line from Shakespeare applies pretty well to TC's protestations in this thread that she isn't for Newt, that she isn't against Mormons, etc.

Hamlet: Madam, how like you this play?

Queen: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

DanL

Right Wingnut said...

Anon, calling someone a bigot is far worse than calling someone a bitch. Especially given the history of the individual (dd) it was directed at. Go ahead and keep rationalizing the Bigot baiting. You're doing your best to give Mormons a bad name in the eyes of people like me who don't know much about the religion, and frankly have never cared one way or another.

Terrye said...

Innocent my ass...I guess check kiting is no big deal anymore.

BTW, he was still forced to resign in disgrace and pay a $300,000 fine and his own party drove him from power..if he was so damn innocent I don't think it would have turned out like that.

Machtyn said...

Martha, it's a pointless attack, and really unfair. TC has already stated she is undecided, take her word for it. Continuing the accusation that she is bigoted is inflammatory and does nothing to engender good feelings from any side.

Now, back to the topic at hand - Gingrich being exonerated. In my opinion, he did resign in disgrace. Whether or not he was guilty, at this point, is immaterial. There is enough evidence that Gingrich had problems that were being ignored by the Dems so they would not get knocked for their bad behavior.

By the way, Gingrich appears to be a tax cheat, not for stuff that happened in 1997, but in 2008+.

Terrye said...

TC:

I don't care how you try to white wash this now..I actually the events when they happened. And yes, Gingrich was forced to resign..he was not exonerated..in the end he was reprimanded and forced to pay a big fat fine..that is something that no other Speaker has been forced to do.

So, I think that saying that he was and is an innocent man is a stretch...he still lied, he still disgraced his office, he was still forced out by his own party and he was still guilty of kite checking..now maybe you do not think that is a big deal compared to being a rich Mormon..but back in the day when Newt was forced out of his position he had managed to become the most hated man in America.

But what the hell, if it makes you feel better go rewrite and revise history.

TexasConservative said...

Curious who deleted the first post by Anonymous calling me a Mormon hater

Anonymous posters are not able to come back and delete their own posts.

I did not delete it. I left it so everyone could see the "personal attack" for what it was.

If those kind of personal attacks are made by people who frequent Rightspeak, I hope their IP address has been recorded and they are blocked from commenting again at Rightspeak.

I would have hoped that a stern message would have replaced the attack while also letting the anonymous poster know they were not welcome at this site any longer.

Right Wingnut said...

TC, there's only one person who could have deleted that, beside you.

IP addresses are not visible in the Comment section with Blogger. All you can do is track the IP addresses of individuals who click the link to open the post. You can't prove who authored a particular comment. The chat box is different. Bosman can see the IPs there, but these individuals who insist on disrupting the site without revealing themselves don't say these things on it for that reason. It very well could be regulars who do not want their names attached to certain comments.

Anonymous said...

RW,

(This is in regards to the first comment that was deleted, who RW thought was a "vile attack", but it is just as vile as his own attacks on others.)

You used, "dumb b****", without the asterisks,and I've lost count of how many times you've used the
f-bomb and other profanity as personal attacks. (That first term you used not 2 days ago.)

And it looks like your justifying yourself by saying that she deserved it(female derogatory term)and rationalizing it by saying it isn't as bad as other language. Wow!!!

This is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

And, yes, those who use personal attacks like RW should be blocked.

Right Wingnut said...

Anon,

People like you who don't have the balls to show their faces are the ones who should be blocked. If you can't handle it, don't read my comments. I'm merely defending TC from baseless character asassination. Make of it what you will.

Anonymous said...

You twist the facts... while accusing Romney of twisting the facts!

How droll.

Anonymous said...

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jan/24/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-newt-gingrichs-contract-was-fredd/
this is what I found...and owner was on CNN talking all these points...Paulee...

Anonymous said...

http://thecompetentconservative.com/ron-paul-ad-says-gingrich-doesnt-have-skeletons-in-his-closet-he-has-a-whole-graveyard/ found this....Paulee

craigs said...

Gingrich borrowed the $ 300 K from Sen Bob Dole, the author of that famous retort to Newt's asking
" Why does everybody take an instant dislike to me ?"

Dole answered..." Saves time!"

No one would go in debt
for $ 300,000 that was innocent

No one would resign from the
Congress within one month of
being re- elected......
Lets get serious about Gingrich and the truth. He lies a lot. That's probably why he was State Chairman for Rockefeller in Georgia. LOL

CraigS

Anonymous said...

TC,

You might enjoy spending some time reading the Article 6 blog. They are 3 very intelligent gentlemen, and what they have to say is enlightening. If you have never read any of their posts, I suggest you do so.

AZ

Anonymous said...

Texas Conservative,

I want to apologize to you. I'm sorry for my accusations and my rude comments.

Yes, it bothers me that you attack Romney a lot. Yes, I think you either don't realize the type of people who put on these pro-life events and how they really feel about Romney's faith, or you don't care. Yes, I wonder why the Mormon bashing doesn't bother you. Yes, I wonder why you don't speak out against it.

But I know you are a decent person. I know you want what is best, as I do. Even though your comments about Romney frustrate me, you're still a better person on these boards than I am. My persona here leaves a lot to be desired I realize.

So I am sorry. I'll try to do better. I know I've said that before folks, but at least I will try.

-Martha

TexasConservative said...

Thank you Martha. I appreciate your apology and I accept it.

I really like Romney as a person. He would be a great friend, neighbor, boss and community member.

I just don't feel the same way about him as a politician. I think he tries to be something that he is not and thus has a hard time convincing people to trust him.

I think he is a moderate Republican. Which is fine as he might do really well in the general election as a moderate. But I don't see him as a Conservative. He may have done some things that are conservative, but to me that does not make him one with a capital C.

So, yes I am still undecided.

As to why I am posting pieces on Newt, I see that he is getting the same treatment that Huckabee got in 2008. When one is over the target, they get shot at, and sometimes with false bullets. So I am going to post truthful articles about Newt to correct that false information. If it was happening to Santorum, then I would defend him as well. Why not defend Romney?-well, pretty much everyone who comes to this site is a Romney supporter, so they are doing great work defending him themselves. Not so much for the other candidates.

I am sorry that there are harmful, hurtful comments being said out there about Mormons and the LDS faith. I am not one of those people saying it, nor have I ever been. If I do not comment on it, it is not because I am defending the slanderers, it is because I have not read it, heard it or seen it myself. So I really have no idea what you are mentioning at the time you are mentioning it. That is why I do not add a comment. It is wrong for anyone to say anything harmful or deceitful about another person's faith. Period.

The battle for the Republican nomination is going to be brutal for the next month or so. It would be wise if everyone could add comments without attacking the other person personally.

Then we need to work together in the general to beat Obama. We cannot have another 4 years of his misguided policies.

Blessings to you Martha,
TC

Anonymous said...

RW,

You personally attacked DD by calling her a, "dumb b****", and you're still defending your comment. You said it is not as bad as the deleted, "mormon bigot" comment.

That I'm posting annonymous is irrelevant. You wrote what you wrote and nobody made you do it and noboy made you defend it.

Your comments are just as bad as those you complained about. You're wrong and will never admit it.

This is no place for personal attacks or profanity--including your own.

Anonymous said...

TC, some of these comments--about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--are covered on Article 6 blog. The blog was originally established to discuss religion and the role it should play in politics. While all of the bloggers have decided to support Romney this go-round, John Schroeder was not a Romney supporter when he agreed to start the blog with Lowell Brown. John Mark Reynolds has recently joined them

The bloggers still pick up on many of these religious news items that the press is mostly choosing to ignore. The little gem about anti-Mormon prayers before Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich showed up at rallies were tiny details mostly buried by the press. Both prayers were clearly anti-Mormon. While candidates welcome others voting for them, they really should distance themselves from the ideas of people who are so clearly biased against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That was one of the criticisms I have of Huckabee last time around. There was no distancing of himself from those who chose to slander Mormons. His websites had all kinds of filth posted on them, and no one cleaned it up. It is something that did hurt him somewhat as he sought to continue his candidacy and build a national one. It is also something that he would have had to overcome had he chosen to run again. When you get too close to smelly people, sometimes the stench rubs off. Huckabee was a little too close to them; besides his own approach to Iowa. It worked in Iowa, but certainly was offensive to people in Utah and many other western states. His behavior now is better, and I like to think of him as more friend than foe. That is what I have always thought about those who call themselves Christians. The past two Presidential elections have brought me to the sad reality that many of these "so-called" Christians have no interest in being my friend and view me as their foe. I am saddened that they think so, but if the only way I can be their friend is to renounce my religion, the answer is "NO!"

Santorum and Newt need to be careful to distance themselves from those whose views would hurt their national campaigns. Although, I suppose if the press doesn't report it, they don't have to worry about it, unless they WANT to do the right thing!

AZ