"In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee". - Gingrich.
That ^ there means he LIED. You can get technical and say it wasn't a
lie, per se, it was just inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements provided to an investigatory arm of the US Congress, but for all intents and purposes: He lied.
The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "
intentional or ... reckless"
disregard of House rules.
It might also behoove some to know the IRS made the ruling stating that the House Ethics Committee refused to hand over the full transcripts.
IRS on the Newt's case: "
- Despite requests to the Ethics Committee, the Service has not been allowed access to the transcripts by the Ethics Committee. Therefore, we are unable to evaluate the context in which these statements were made.
We base our conclusions in this memorandum upon the facts available to us....
our factual record does not include transcripts of witness statements before the Ethics Committee....part of our analysis of whether PFF had a substantial nonexempt purpose to serve private interests is the determination of the purposes for forming and operating PFF. In determining the purposes of PFF, evidence of the purposes and roles of PFF's officers and directors acting in their official capacities and of Mr. Gingrich acting in his capacity as teacher of the RAC course is relevant. Information was obtained from these persons under oath by the Ethics Committee's Special Counsel.
It is precisely this information to which we have been denied access by the Ethics Committee. It is possible that if the Ethics Committee had rendered full cooperation with our examination, the transcripts might have affected our conclusion."
Read that memorandum here
Then the IRS cowered and said Gingrich's course wasn't "partisan" - Riiiight. That's like saying a course by the extreme partisan Nancy Pelosi taught wasn't partisan. Ha!
It's a long, complex and muddled story, but the IRS did not exonerate him of the Ethics charges - and no matter how hard Newtonians try, you'll never get around the fact NEWT HIMSELF SAID HE LIED.
Which leads me to the question: Did he make those statements to the Ethics Committee under oath?
