Will democrats led by Pelosi break the house rules on ethics just to "get Newt"?

Gotta laugh.

Newts doing well in the polls so Pelosi, that icon of upright ethical behavior, is gonna dig through decades old "stuff" to try to sink him?? The same Pelosi who as Speaker tried her dmandest to give Wrangle a pass?? That Pelosi??

Wonder how Pelosi would survive an investigation into the insider trading fiasco currently brewing in Congress??

Rangle deserved a pass.
That was a witch hunt.

Actually, I think the hunt was more over tax evasion than being a witch:)

I reads through the details fo the violations.....

It amounted to less than a thousand a year in tax savings...

Now...being a business owner, I can attest to one thing....I WOULD NEVER CONSIDER DOING ANYTHING THAT MAY BE DEEMED AS ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL IN AN EFFORT TO SAVE 750 BUCKS...

In my eyes, Rangle was guilty of only one thing....poor accounting practices.
 
I didnt ask that.
Personallyt, I want to know what dirt Pelosi has on Newt. I like to make educated decisions when voting.

But I am a bit disturbed that Pelosi hgeld back information for over 15 years now and decided to use that informatyion for party advantage.

When are we all going to realize that our congress is playing with us....we are their empoloyers...and everydqay we are seeing how they hide crap from us...and then ask us to "trust them"...

Doesnt that bother you?

It does me...thats for sure.

I look at it differently

Newt had his hearing, was punished and went into private life as a political commentator. I think he has an expectation of privacy because it is not really relevant to his job

However, I find it highly relevant to being elected president and I think Newt is acting like a criminal by hiding behind House Confidentiality rules

I dont disagree.

Newt has been my choice since the primary campaigns began.
Now I want to hear mnore about his past.

But I still question why a congressperson feels she has the right to hide this info 15 years ago and not release it until she can gain from it.

To me? That in itself is an ethics violation.

I have no doubt that Pelosi is timing this for it's political punch. I would prefer that she not be the one to release this information. If she does, I think she should face any consequences

But it scares me that Newt is acting like a criminal in demanding his confidentiality rights. He may have the right to remain silent, but that does not make him appear innocent

If this event in his life is significant enough to cause him to resign from Congress, I think the voters should know the details and decide if it is still relevant
 
I look at it differently

Newt had his hearing, was punished and went into private life as a political commentator. I think he has an expectation of privacy because it is not really relevant to his job

However, I find it highly relevant to being elected president and I think Newt is acting like a criminal by hiding behind House Confidentiality rules

I dont disagree.

Newt has been my choice since the primary campaigns began.
Now I want to hear mnore about his past.

But I still question why a congressperson feels she has the right to hide this info 15 years ago and not release it until she can gain from it.

To me? That in itself is an ethics violation.

I have no doubt that Pelosi is timing this for it's political punch. I would prefer that she not be the one to release this information. If she does, I think she should face any consequences

But it scares me that Newt is acting like a criminal in demanding his confidentiality rights. He may have the right to remain silent, but that does not make him appear innocent

If this event in his life is significant enough to cause him to resign from Congress, I think the voters should know the details and decide if it is still relevant

Dont you get it RW?

She does not need to release the information...and as the former speaker, she knows she cant.

And your attitude is exactly why she idd it the way she did it.....now people see Newt as hiding something.

He has an uphill battle...and he eartned it with his ethics violation..

But in the meantime, we have a house minority leader, former speaker, possibly future speaker who played a political game for political expediency with information that she gathered while on the peoples payroll.

Such would result in termination of that employee in the private sector..and rightfully so.

Curious...does it nbot concern you that she may have as much damning information on some of our other law makers that are part of the demoicratic party and uses it to force their hands when it comes to legislation?

In my eyes, she has proven to not be trusted.

And if Newt does not come clean, he could also not be trusted.

But she is still writing our laws....he is not.
 
Pelosi is going to lie. Whatever she has will be changed, crafted and adjusted. Then you'll find out exactly what lie she wants you to know.
 

You need to learn the meaning of the word "crimes", you ignorant twat. Or the meaning of ANY word, for that matter.

What they so carefully DON'T tell you in your cherrypicked Post article - and what you've always been too pig-stupid to find out on your own, because who needs facts when you have Democrat talking points? - is that the Ethics Committee ginned up 84 charges against Gingrich, and was forced to dismiss 83 of them. What they FURTHER don't tell you - but is available for you to look up if you had two brain cells to rub together and gave a fat rat's ass about the truth, rather than enforcing your partisan bullshit worldview - is that the ONE charge they finally censured him for was for discrepancies in the paperwork he handed in. No crimes, not even really much of an ethics violation, just a paperwork snafu. Gingrich didn't "admit his guilt"; he took responsibility for the fact that it was his job to be certain of everything his lawyer turned in. And the FINAL thing your carefully-chosen article forgot to mention is that the IRS thoroughly investigated him themselves, and came back with a finding that he had violated no laws at all.

So until you have something better than an invented political hack job - which STILL was forced to dismiss all substantive charges - shut your flapping gob and get your ass back in the kitchen where you might actually be useful.
 
You would think people would want to know what they were voting for. The same people have looney transvestites chasing down Obama's kindergarten records but they are seemingly disinterested in ethics violations by a man running to be their presidential nominee, lord help us.

LOL The phoney outrage is so yesterday.

Let me know when newt is responsible for killing americans like many democrats are.

Why dont you go tell the murdered mans wife it was for a greater cause in eliminating the second.

asswipe.

OK that made little sense, now why don't you want to know what Newt did before you vote for him?

We already DO know, and now we're a) laughing at your desperate belief that someone is going to come up with an eleventh-hour surprise about him to save your asses, or b) being angry at Pelosi's implication that she's planning to release information about which she's sworn to silence.

But I DO love how leftists think "You want to know about him before you vote, don't you?" trumps confidentiality agreements in the case of conservatives, but are HORRIFIED at the idea of investigating ANYTHING about liberals. Where was this zeal to "know about him before you vote" when Obama was running? Where was all this fucking curiosity THEN, you hypocritical toads?
 
Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

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 ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

BBM...

A man who admits his mistakes has a lesser chance of repeating them than a presidemt who blames all others for the mistakes he has made and affected the country.

Forgive and forget? Bullshit.

Who asked you to forgive anything? Who the fuck are you, Pope Benedict? You're going to run around forgiving people's sins? Get over yourself.

He paid his fine, we all moved on. You want to live in the past, chewing over pathetic ethics charges from twenty years ago? Be my guest. Might keep you busy while your disaster of a President goes down in flames.
 
I dont disagree.

Newt has been my choice since the primary campaigns began.
Now I want to hear mnore about his past.

But I still question why a congressperson feels she has the right to hide this info 15 years ago and not release it until she can gain from it.

To me? That in itself is an ethics violation.

I have no doubt that Pelosi is timing this for it's political punch. I would prefer that she not be the one to release this information. If she does, I think she should face any consequences

But it scares me that Newt is acting like a criminal in demanding his confidentiality rights. He may have the right to remain silent, but that does not make him appear innocent

If this event in his life is significant enough to cause him to resign from Congress, I think the voters should know the details and decide if it is still relevant

Dont you get it RW?

She does not need to release the information...and as the former speaker, she knows she cant.

And your attitude is exactly why she idd it the way she did it.....now people see Newt as hiding something.

He has an uphill battle...and he eartned it with his ethics violation..

But in the meantime, we have a house minority leader, former speaker, possibly future speaker who played a political game for political expediency with information that she gathered while on the peoples payroll.

Such would result in termination of that employee in the private sector..and rightfully so.

Curious...does it nbot concern you that she may have as much damning information on some of our other law makers that are part of the demoicratic party and uses it to force their hands when it comes to legislation?

In my eyes, she has proven to not be trusted.

And if Newt does not come clean, he could also not be trusted.

But she is still writing our laws....he is not.

Newts ethical violations will now become the 800 lb gorilla in the room. The more Newt tries to say he has confidentiality protections, the more guilty he will seem
Newt can run, but he can't hide. The more he declines comment, the more people will use their imaginations about what really happened

His ethics file will be released one way or another.....and Pelosi got the ball rolling
 
By John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

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 ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.
 
They are crimes and you can not keep pretending they are not crimes without being called out as fact adverse poltical hacks
 
I have no doubt that Pelosi is timing this for it's political punch. I would prefer that she not be the one to release this information. If she does, I think she should face any consequences

But it scares me that Newt is acting like a criminal in demanding his confidentiality rights. He may have the right to remain silent, but that does not make him appear innocent

If this event in his life is significant enough to cause him to resign from Congress, I think the voters should know the details and decide if it is still relevant

Dont you get it RW?

She does not need to release the information...and as the former speaker, she knows she cant.

And your attitude is exactly why she idd it the way she did it.....now people see Newt as hiding something.

He has an uphill battle...and he eartned it with his ethics violation..

But in the meantime, we have a house minority leader, former speaker, possibly future speaker who played a political game for political expediency with information that she gathered while on the peoples payroll.

Such would result in termination of that employee in the private sector..and rightfully so.

Curious...does it nbot concern you that she may have as much damning information on some of our other law makers that are part of the demoicratic party and uses it to force their hands when it comes to legislation?

In my eyes, she has proven to not be trusted.

And if Newt does not come clean, he could also not be trusted.

But she is still writing our laws....he is not.

Newts ethical violations will now become the 800 lb gorilla in the room. The more Newt tries to say he has confidentiality protections, the more guilty he will seem
Newt can run, but he can't hide. The more he declines comment, the more people will use their imaginations about what really happened

His ethics file will be released one way or another.....and Pelosi got the ball rolling

Bring on the Princess and let's vet her! It's about time. She has nothing to hide, right? LOL!
 

Forum List

Back
Top