• Comment (21)

Why Nancy Pelosi Is Attacking Newt Gingrich on Ethics

December 6, 2011 RSS Feed Print

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants the world to believe she knows something about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich that could prove damaging to his presidential ambitions.

"One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich," Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. "I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

It is highly unlikely that she would have anything new to say. Much if not all of the information is already public record. And, as the GOP frontrunner's campaign was quick to remind people Monday,

In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under President Bill Clinton, nonetheless) concluded that Gingrich did not violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air "it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were wrong."

[Read the U.S. News debate on whether Newt Gingrich can beat Barack Obama.]

What Pelosi is doing is a classic case of misdirection that began after it was revealed on 60 Minutes that she has some things of her own to answer for. As the San Francisco Examiner editorialized recently,

Democrat Nancy Pelosi and her husband cashed in big time by getting special access to an initial public offering of Visa stock even as the House under her leadership refused to move important credit card industry reforms.

The mere idea that Pelosi and others—Democrats and Republicans alike—may have realized financial gains through what in the private sector is called "insider trading" has set off a firestorm of complaints among the American electorate that threatens to take Congress's approval rating down to zero.

[Read Brad Bannon on why Americans think politics is corrupt.]

One wonders what she might have to say that would be new. But, by attacking Gingrich by disclosing supposedly heretofore secret information, Pelosi would certainly change the subject, at least for a day or two. Never mind that, as his campaign said in a release,

Politically motivated ethics charges were filed against Newt when he was Speaker of the House regarding the use of tax exempt funds for a college course he taught titled 'Renewing American Civilization.'  83 of the 84 were found to be without merit...the remaining charge had to do with contradictory documents prepared by Newt's lawyer supplied during the course of the investigation. Newt took responsibility for the error and agreed to reimburse the committee the cost of the investigation into that discrepancy. The agreement specifically noted the payment was not a fine.

What Pelosi suggests she may do may also be an abuse of the congressional ethics process; Gingrich has certainly said as much. But it is undeniably a convenient way to take attention off what she and her husband might have done. To be fair, Pelosi denies any wrongdoing and the idea that members of Congress cannot trade on information they learn in the course of their official business is at least a gray area. It is not, for the moment at least, explicitly prohibited although legislation is moving quickly that would make it illegal, legislation the San Francisco Democrat now supports. Nevertheless it is nasty can of worms that is not going to go away quickly.

Tags:
politics,
2012 presidential election,
Nancy Pelosi,
ethics,
Newt Gingrich

Reader Comments Read all comments (21)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

add another republican law maker to the growing list that served with newt. this time it;s rep.r. peter king of new york. more will follow.

as to newt's tenure in the house a majority of the members were glad to see the ego maniac leave the body.

the republicans knives are out for newt,the dems are just sitting back and enjoying the show.

bruce b of NV 4:05PM December 08, 2011

brucetee

Point is your facts are wrong. Thomas Dale "Tom" DeLay indeed. Another point Pelosi voted against raising the debt ceiling and Reed voted against obuma's job bill.

Of course some Republicans are against Newt. SO ? Obuma got elected with less than 100 % of vote.

The crust of this discussion began because I said Newt should have his $$$ 300,000 returned and I have showed why.

Pelosi comes out smelling like garbage with her remakes on ethics committee SECRETS and Newt like mountain clear stream CALLING her out. Bring on the Ethic committee to public consciousness:

“Newt Gingrich and the Ridiculous "Ethics Violations" Penalty”

“House Speaker Newt Gingrich, saying he is ``a person of limited means,'' is paying the $300,000 ethics penalty with a loan from 1996 Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole.”

“And the Democrats are whining about it. Why?”

“First of all, what exactly were the charges against Newt? David Bonior brought 75 charges against Newt - and 74 of them were found to have NO MERIT WHATSOEVER. The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class "Renewing American Civilization" properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.”

“The first 'charge' from the ethics committee is that he "may have" violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.”

“The lectures never mentioned the words "Republicans" or "Democrats," and one entire session was spent praising FDR. Is that "partisan?" Not only has a former commissioner of the IRS has come forward and said that no tax laws were violated, but an Ethics Committee lawyer even gave approval for the class before Newt started it.”

“The second 'charge' from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, Newt provided false information to the committee. Do you know what this "false information" is”

“Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to "Renewing American Civilization." He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide. But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions. So is this a big deal? Is this "lying to Congress?"

“What's funny is that the Ethics Committee itself approved the course Newt taught, the same course that started this whole "ethics violation" farce. Newt wasn't even paid for the course. In any case, I am not getting into all the details of the whole ethics violation mess, and the incredible double standard shown, since that would warrant a separate web site. I just find it odd that the Ethics Committee turned around and slammed Newt with a $300,000 penalty for something that they had approved! In addition, if a reprimand was enough "punishment" for Barney Frank, who was charged by the same committee with fixing 30 parking tickets, and writing a misleading probation letter on behalf of child pornographer, cocaine dealer, male prostitute and lover Steven Gobie, why is Newt getting slammed with such a harsher penalty?”

“The only reason that Rep. David Bonior and other Democrats filed 75 ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich in the first place is because Newt filed and forced former Democrat Speaker Jim Wright to resign in 1988. The whole ethics violation farce was about nothing but revenge. Bonior and the Dems. wanted revenge for Jim Wright and for losing the House in 1994 and 1996.”

“Don't the Democrats have anything better to do?”

“In any case, I digress. Despite the unfairness of the whole ethics situation, (I can't believe people are worried about Newt's ethics when Bill Clinton is running the country) Newt bears full responsibility for these "ethics violations." He could have legally used campaign funds or a defense trust fund to pay the ethics penalty or sued the lawyers who he said misled him into what he calls a technical ethics violation. He has the legal right to do any of those things. But did he? No. Gingrich said he and his wife decided he had ``a moral obligation to pay the $300,000 out of personal funds.'' So, he took out an 8 year loan at prime plus 1.5 - which is about 10% interest. By taking out this type of loan from Dole, not only would he be relieving the taxpayers of paying for the penalty fine, but Newt would then not be beholden to any bank, lending institute, etc. Thus, he wouldn't have to worry about conflicts every time a banking issue came before him.”

“By the way, can anyone imagine Bill Clinton paying out of his own pocket because he felt a "moral obligation?"

“This sounds pretty reasonable, right? Not according to some people. You should hear the moaning groaning and whining from the Left! It's really embarrassing. They say that Dole is a lobbyist for the tobacco companies so Newt is now getting the money from tobacco companies for favors in the ongoing battle to stop legislation against tobacco firms. (talk about twisted rationale - how long does it take the Dems to come up with these things?) Newt can't win!”

“It's pretty obvious that the Democrats are upset and whining because Newt wasn't beaten, and has come back in spite of the campaign to discredit him and remove him from power.”

“Remember, Newt COULD have legally taken the money out of campaign funds or legal defense funds, like our wonderful president did for his sexual harassment suit! But Newt, having moral character, is taking this obscene and ridiculous amount of money out of personal funds. Yet, out of apparent desperation, the Left is still whining, and is scrambling to try and tie Republicans with the tobacco industry. But let us not forget who was selling and MAKING MONEY off the tobacco industry not that many years ago - Al Gore!”

“It also seems strange that Democrats blasted Newt for taking Dole's loan, and are now calling Dole a tobacco lobbyist - - Yes, Dole works for a law firm which represents tobacco companies. However, just sit back and think a minute. If we are to judge Dole by the law firms' other clients, clients that Dole is not associated with, then it's only fair that we judge all people by their lawyer's other clients. I wonder how many people would be happy about that? Do YOU know all the clients your lawyer represents??”

“In any case, let's look at who is representing the tobacco company in the law firm. The representers are Ann Richards (former governor of Texas) and George Mitchell (former Senator) - both DEMOCRATS!!!”

“The Democrats just always need something to whine about, don't they?”

http://www.gargaro.com/newtmoney.html

Bill Hedges of MO 2:28PM December 08, 2011

hey bill your missing the point.it;s not the democracts coming after newt,it;s people in his own party.right wing pundits from such places as the weekly standard,national review ,carl rove ect.

your beef is with them.they know if he were to get the nomination they can kiss their 2012 aspirations goodbye.

bruce b of NV 2:26AM December 08, 2011

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement