Gingrich Ethics Report 01/17/1997 | Full Document

I have not had a chance to scan through this just yet.  But, I wanted to share it with all of you so that we can read the TRUTH for ourselves instead of relying on some baseless accusations made by the Romney crew and Ms. Nancy Pelosi.

8 thoughts on “Gingrich Ethics Report 01/17/1997 | Full Document

  1. Seems to me as I said before it was a witch hunt mainly as retribution for charges brought by Newt earlier, the first thing that caught my eye was the one bringing charges was Jones who was running against Newt… Sounds very familiar don’t it, the philosophy of the politicians it seems is when you tell a story you know is a lie, you just make sure you tell it like it could be true. Talons Point Shakespeare wasn’t the only one that talked about lawyers, Jesus had a few things to say about them too, and it wasn’t flattering!

    • And then there’s Talon 3:17 “…and it will be easier than a Congressional Democrat to get through the eye of a needle than to put integrity above ideology.”

      (The small print: No Democrat was misrepresented and the Bible was not injured in the making of this sarcastic comment)

  2. First off I must note that I have read through this as quickly as possible and will attempt to disseminate the info slower at a later date. However, it’s easy to see that this report is a massive amount of irrelevant evidence showing Gingrich and GOPAC had political intentions (GASP!) for the program produced and itself quotes in places where the information was available to both parties for the betterment of America. It is designed to infer that Gingrich’s and GOPAC’s motives prove that the end result product was a veiled GOP advertisement. One of these quotes was from GOPAC as follows:

    “Ideas matter, and replacing the welfare state with an Opportunity society is so important that Newt is developing a college course that he’ll be teaching this fall on this subject, Renewing American Civilization. I wanted you to hear his initial thoughts because it seems to me that we can’t answer the question ‘‘What does the Republican Party stand for?’’ without considering the issues Newt has raised in this speech. ” (2nd GASP!!)

    Despite the multi-page list of quotes attempting to imply a violation of IRS rules overseeing such action, the IRS, under Clinton (if some find it relevant) exonerated both Gingrich and GOPAC despite their best effort to entrap Gingrich in technicalities during hearings.

    On pgs 64-65 the House’s “Expert” concluded there was a 501c3 violation which was later debunked by the IRS itself.

    The ultimate findings of the document is two-fold as I read it. 1) It claims Gingrich misrepresents or omits something in testimony (seems to be a singular item) of which I have not yet been able to ascertain fully at the moment due to time constraints; 2) It claims that Gingrich reflected poorly on the House for not seeking legal IRS related advice on his course though the IRS determination that his course was NOT partisan in design shows Gingrich’s judgment was consistent with what the House’s recommended legal counsel would have advised. In other words the House reprimanded him for not having a lawyer tell him what he apparently already knew.

    Note: I will reread the report more slowly when time permits to see if I can get to the crux of what seems to be an accusation of omitting a fact in testimony that it appears Gingrich acknowledges as an omission. Even so it all hinged on IRS rules that were assumed by the House to have been violated and we know how that turned.

    Now for the why: We know the Democrats were furious over Gingrich’s successful toppling of the crooked Jim Wright. Couple this with the recognition of Gingrich’s rising star and the awareness he was formulating a tool for disrupting and replacing the welfare state put them over the liberal edge. The Democrats were clearly offended by the ghastly premise that the welfare system was dysfunctional and this course, Gingrich, and GOPAC, had the audacity to suggest an alternative, growth based solution.

    REMINDER: Our founders never intended Congress to be a full time vocation. They expected members to return from each session to their own vocations and interests / activities. Gingrich’s actions (at least in this regard) have been shown that he actually was doing exactly what the founder’s expected (3rd GASP!!)

    No doubt the left will play hey with this but as I read it so far (again, will reread) I see this report, viewed in the light of history, to be beneficial to Gingrich.

    One thing is quite clear. If anyone reads this document, specifically the testimony and conclusions, they will fully understand what William Shakespeare was suggesting about lawyers.

    • After reviewing again the issue of omission here is what I take from it. Gingrich himself was not fully aware of his ability to admit his purpose for the course was to promote his political project. (As long as the final product did not promote Republican but instead focused on ideals he was ok.) So, he decided to file a legal response denying intent because he believed the false premise put forth by the Democrats that he had violated the 501c3 rules. This is clearly lying and worthy of noting but in full context he was baited by the left into it which speaks to their dishonesty as much has his wrong choice when faced with a false impression of being trapped.

      In other words He was later proven to not have violated the 501c3 rules, but was intimidated into believing he did, tried to hide what he was was tricked into believing he did, acknowledged that he misrepresented his intent to the “Sob” Committee and accepted responsibility (thus the reason he paid the fine), only to find out later he should have been like he is now, unapologetic.

      Oh Irony.

Comments are closed.