Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I dunno...Go ask Clintoon, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, war profiteer Dianne Frankenstein, insider trader and compulsive liar Nancy Pelosi, and report back your results.I agree with Newt. How do you disgarace a party that has no shame?
On Hannity Newt said that he didn't resign in disgrace from the congress.
WTFlock?
How does he back up that claim? I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. I mean what the meaning of "disgrace" is.
I liked the part where Gingrich said he wanted his fellow republicans to cast a vote against him in his ethics case.
Newt is better than say, edwards, clinton, weiner, frank, need I go on?
None of those Clowns are perfect.
I'd bet that if you dig into any of them you'll find something that they could be booted out for. Problem is that they police themselves.
On Hannity Newt said that he didn't resign in disgrace from the congress.
WTFlock?
How does he back up that claim? I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. I mean what the meaning of "disgrace" is.
Okay, this is my last "Oh God not Newt" thread for the day. I think. I'll try to hold back until tomorrow.
No of course he didn't.
A reprimand for ethical wrongdoing and a $300,000 fine is like an honorarium, only in reverse.
Yes, it was a fine. First, he brought discredit to the House and was reprimanded. The vote was 395 to 28. That's a bipartisan smackdown by any measure. At that point he has lost confidence in a great many of the House members.No of course he didn't.
A reprimand for ethical wrongdoing and a $300,000 fine is like an honorarium, only in reverse.
Except
1- It wasn't a fine.
2- It had nothing to do with the reason why he eventually stepped down.
http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/House%20Report%20105-1_1.pdf"The violation does not represent only a single instance of reckless conduct...
Over a number of years and in a number of situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities.
See that part where it says "Examples of such fines include the following"Historical Summary of
Conduct Cases in the House of Representatives
●
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
1798-2004:
http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/Historical_Chart_Final_Version in Word_0.pdf
Is Gingrich's Name there? Yes.
Was Gingrich's case expunged, removed, dismissed? No.
====================================
Straight from the Current Official Government Publication on House Ethics:
Chapter 25: Ethics; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-108/pdf/GPO-HPRACTICE-108-26.pdf
[31 pg document]
Conduct Reflecting Discredit on the House:
The House voted to reprimand the Speaker for bringing discredit on the
House. H. Res. 31, H. Rept. 105–1, In re Gingrich, Jan. 21, 1997, p 393.
The House voted to reprimand a Speaker for violating certain provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code. 105–1, H. Res. 31, H. Rept. 105–1, In re Gingrich,
Jan. 21, 1997, p 393. Any disciplinary measure that the House invokes against a Member for
an alleged or proven violation of such a statute is separate and distinct from
sanctions that may be sought by law enforcement authorities at the State or
Federal level.
[pages 503-506]
§ 25. Fines; Restitution of FundsPursuant to its constitutional authority to punish its Members, the House
may levy a fine as a disciplinary measure against a Member for certain misconduct.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 5, cl. 2; Deschler Ch 12 § 17. The fine may
be coupled with certain other disciplinary measures deemed appropriate by
the House.
Examples of such fines include the following:
* For improper expenditure of House funds for private purposes, a fine of
$25,000, to be deducted in monthly installments from the Member’s salary.
91–1, H. Res. 2, Jan. 3, 1969, p 29.
* For misuse of congressional clerk-hire, restitution of monies in the amount
in which the Member personally benefited by such misuse. H. Res. 378,
H. Rept. 96–351, In re Diggs, July 31, 1979, p 21584.
------> * For a serious violation that, in the opinion of the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, was more serious than one deserving reprimand but
less serious than one deserving censure, reimbursement to the committee
for the cost of conducting the investigation, which was $300,000. H. Res.
31, H. Rept. 105–1, In re Gingrich, Jan. 21, 1997, p 393.
[page 521]
I doubt it.I liked the part where Gingrich said he wanted his fellow republicans to cast a vote against him in his ethics case.
I wonder if anyone backs this up.
I really don't have a good feel for how to assess Newt's story telling yet.
On Hannity Newt said that he didn't resign in disgrace from the congress.
WTFlock?
How does he back up that claim? I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. I mean what the meaning of "disgrace" is.
Okay, this is my last "Oh God not Newt" thread for the day. I think. I'll try to hold back until tomorrow.
Well, except that if you were actually around then, you forget the sequence of events.
September 1998- Congress votes to go ahead and initiate an investigation of Clinton over all things Lewinsky. this enrages liberals and a lot of folks who just didn't understand the difference between simply lying about a blow job and actually committing perjury in a federal court.
October 1998- Congress totally knuckled under on Clinton's budget, enraging a lot of conservatives, who felt that opposing Clinton's agenda was an important thing. There was a lot of Conservative anger.
November 1998- The GOP loses 5 seats in the house in a year they were expected to make gains. This was as much about people being upset about impeachment as it was about people being upset about comprimising.
Newt resigned because his party lost seats, just like Denny Hastert stepped aside when his party lost control of Congress in 2006. It wasn't an issue of "disgrace", because it was the performance of his party. The people who were always against Newt quickly put up Livingston as the new Speaker Designate, until Larry Flynt exposed Livingstone had an affair.
Now, later, well after the fact, we found out about Callista after Newt had retired.
One can criticize many aspects of Newt's leadership of the House, but in this case, he really did take one for the team.
On Hannity Newt said that he didn't resign in disgrace from the congress.
WTFlock?
How does he back up that claim? I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. I mean what the meaning of "disgrace" is.
Okay, this is my last "Oh God not Newt" thread for the day. I think. I'll try to hold back until tomorrow.
I doubt it.I liked the part where Gingrich said he wanted his fellow republicans to cast a vote against him in his ethics case.
I wonder if anyone backs this up.
I really don't have a good feel for how to assess Newt's story telling yet.
Yeah, Gingrich beggggged us to put that black mark on his record.
lol.
Go back and read this. Some interesting quotes from both sides of the aisle.
Washingtonpost.com: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker
If just about all of our politicians weren't hypocrites it would be hypocritical.
