Despicable is Mitt Romney: Romney Sending Cake to Newt Gingrich on Ethics Anniversary

Be clear about one thing: the Ethics Charges against Newt Gringrich, for which he was fined, involved teaching conservatism in a university classroom. If this story is true, and I find it hard to believe it is, the Romney campaign is sending Newt Gingrich a cake to celebrate the day Newt was reprimanded with a fine. The fine of $300,000 was set ONLY to cover expenses of the House Ethics Committee witchhunt.

UPDATE 1-22-12: Two new updates with additional information on Newt’s House Ethics charges: Gingrich: The Concession Cake and Newt’s Ethics and Gingrich Ethics Charges: Concluded Nothing. Between these three articles, the Ethics shame is exposed for what it is – an assault on conservatism in the classroom.

*****

The SubCommittee suspected that Gingrich violated the 501(3)(c) tax codes,…but that they COULD NOT, and DID NOT conclude this to be the case. They found that he provided information that was inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable, dragging the Committee’s work out longer than they wished, and so they fined him $300,000 to cover their expenses.

For that, Mitt Romney is sending a cake to celebrate the 15-year anniversary. I would like one honest reporter to ask Mitt Romney if he knows what the reprimand and fine was about, and doesn’t he think it was simply another attack on conservatism. I’d really like to hear that answer.

 Here are the details:

Democrat Ben Jones, a Gingrich challenger, brought the charges in 1994, alleging Gingrich violated (501(c)(3) organizations for political gain.

When not resolved in the 103rd Congress, Democrat David Bonoir took up the mantle in January 1995. Democrats got their claws into the new Speaker of the House, expanded the investigation and formed a Special Counsel. After hiring an outside attorney, other charges came forth:

1. Did Gingrich provide accurate and reliable information in relationship to the course, Renewing American Civilization and what was GOPAC’s, and Progress and Freedom Foundation’s relationship to the course

2) Did Gingrich’s relationship with the Progress and Freedom Foundation violate 501(c)(3) of the IRS code?

3) Did Gingrich violate House Rule 45, the use of personnel and facilities of the Progress and Freedom Foundation for official purposes?

4. Did Gingrich violate activities on behalf of the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation under it’s 501(3)(c) of the IRS code (House Rule 43, C1.1).

Directly from a Report the Select Committee on Ethics “In the matter of Representative Newt Gingrich:”

…the subcommittee issued a Statement of Alleged Violation with respect to the initial allegation pertaining to Renewing American Civilization and also with respect to items 1 and 4 above.

The Subcommittee DID NOT find any violations of House Rules in regard to the issues set forth in items 2 and 3 above.

The Subcommittee, however, decided to recommend that the full Committee make available to the IRS documents produced during the Preliminary Inquiry for use in its ongoing inquiries of 501(c)(3) organization.

In regard to item 3 above, the Subcommittee decided to issue some advice to Members concerning the proper use of outside consultants for official purposes.

The SubCommittee then voted and recommended Gingrich for reprimand and a fine of $300,000 “for some of the costs of the investigation….” Voting for the fine and reprimand: Porter Goss (R), Steven Schiff (R), Ben Cardin (D), Nancy Pelosi (D), Robert Borski (D), Thomas Sawyer (D). Texan Congressman Lamar Smith was the lone Republican ‘no’ vote, and the only Republican still serving in the House.

Looking back, how is Porter Goss thinking about this today. Congressman Steven Schiff is deceased. How different our country might be today had Newt’s teachings reverberated through academia. Here’s a quote from one of his classes:

“American civilization cannot survive with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds shooting one another, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds graduating with diplomas they cannot read,” Gingrich lectured.

The investigation lasted from January 3, 1996 to December 12, 1996.

Oh the irony:

CHARLIE RANGEL: The Charlie Rangel scandal involved, unpaid income and assets resulting in upaid taxes, taking sponsored trips to the Caribbean, using the House parking garage for his own personal storage space, against House rules – for years! He used House letterhead to solicit contributions. A Bermuda tax shelter, under loopholes, gained tens of millions of dollar in tax breaks. Rangel voted against the loopholes, but accepted $1 MILLION in campaign contribution from the company.

Rangel’s sanctions from the House Ethics Committee, after years of review: he was found guilty of 11 of 13 charges, censured and ordered to pay his taxes.

MAXINE WATERS: In July 2010 coming House Ethics charges against Maxine Waters were announced. A $12 MILLION bailout went to OneUnited Bank:

The funding came three months after Waters, a senior member of the committee that oversees banking, helped arrange a meeting between officials of the bank, other minority-owned financial institutions and Treasury Department representatives.

Waters’ husband, Sidney Williams, had owned stock in the bank and served on its board.

A “public trial” for Waters was delayed in December 2010 due to “the discovery of new materials.” July 2011, the Ethic Committee announced they were bringing in outside council to examine their own partisianship. Waters demanded a dismissal. I see no news on this since the July 2011 report.

This from NPR (yes, NPR!):

Cole also said that while the committee had not reached a conclusion about whether Gingrich had violated tax laws, that matter will be left to the Internal Revenue Service. The committee plans to make available its files to the IRS….

The original charges had fallen by the wayside. Gingrich admitted he had unintentionally but materially misled the committee and had failed to keep the college course insulated from partisan politics.

These charges were nothing. In the NPR article, Gingrich is quoted saying “I should have fought back harder against the Democrat assault.” If the story of the cake delivery is true, it will tear GOPers even farther apart. If Romney is the nominee, I have to support him, and I have said I will do so enthusiastically. That waning enthusiasm will have to convert to wicked energy to have anyone but Obama in the White House. See the Romney campaign press release announcing the “cake” here. Read the Mediate report here.

Linked at Dysfunction Junction (thanks) with lots of good takes on the South Carolina primary.

Thanks to Doug Ross and Larwyn’s Linx for linking!

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

 

  • I want to thank you for getting this information out to Americans early and fast. This is valuable information we can use for the election of Newt Gingrich as our nominee. Thank you!

    On the very day that Republicans go to the polls to decide where RINO Romney or Newt Gingrich ought to be their nominee, RINO Romney just had to try and stick it to Newt by sending him a cake according to a Fox News account, celebrating the 15th anniversary of Nancy Pelosi’s slew of dozens of false and unfounded investigations, which was really a Democratic ‘witch hunt’ to try to derail the continuation of the Reagan Revolution, that Newt was trying to undertake by reforming welfare, balancing America’s budgets, creating conditions for the creation of many million of American jobs and doing other great things FOR America and Americans. This just goes to show who’s side Romney is and was on, and that is Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party’s side, versus true Conservatives and the Republican Party. This IS just ANOTHER reason why I call Romney a RINO!!!

    • 777denny, in return, I thank you for reading. Romney is less in my eyes than a RINO today. I pray this backfires hugely.

  • Pingback: South Carolina Primary Results: Live Blog()

  • Romney, in spite of his compassionate and soft eyes, has a very vindictive side to his character. He’s clearly not all sweetness and light — and he will stop at nothing to win an election. The GOP needs to keep in mind that Romney does play dirty and sandbag his fellow GOP members.

    • AOW, Romney reminds me a subdued Clinton.

  • Pingback: Gingrich: The Concession Cake and Newt’s Ethics | Maggie's Notebook()

  • Pingback: Newt Gingrich South Carolina After Primary Speech Video | Maggie's Notebook()

  • I’m sorry but I have to admit when I first read the post title, I laughed. Maybe we take some political things to seriously and others not enough. This was not an attack on conservatism. It was the part of politics that I dislike but was not mean-spirited. Each candidate may or may not choose to bring attention to the vulnerability of the others. More than one pundit has reminded us all that whatever GOP candidates do to each other, no matter how distasteful, is nothing more than a dress rehearsal for what will come from the left when the battle begins in earnest.

    Here’s the deal. In the information age any likely voter with a modicum of intelligence can briefly research a topic like Newt’s ethics investigation in Congress to learn it went nowhere and was politically motivated.

    You may reply that it still does damage and I would follow with this. It won’t change the vote. Registered Democrats and registered Republicans will vote the party line. Independents are unreliable at best. Those independents who perform due diligence will not be swayed by political attacks but the facts and they are already in evidence. The rest of the potential voters will be lucky to make it to the polls and if they do will make a bad decision with or without this information. Any other anomalies will not represent a significant percentage of the vote barring a horrific ‘new’ mistake by the eventual GOP nominee.

    Every GOP candidate still in the race has vulnerabilities. My personal opinion is that Rick Santorum is the only conservative in the 2012 Presidential campaign. While pouring over reams of Congressional record entries Santorum has been found to be willing to provide ‘safety net’ options some conservatives would oppose. To his credit, some of them make some sense. He also exposed the Dems in 1993 as I point out on my blog as having played the same stupid games they are using today.

    Democrats then like Democrats now opposed paying for an extension of UI benefits by spending cuts elsewhere. They of course framed Republicans as heartless bastards when in fact the GOP then, as now, was willing to lend a helping hand to those who were out of work but liberals declined to do it in a responsible manner.

    Am I getting through to y’all? I supported Michele Bachmann as one of two conservatives in the 2012 Presidential campaign. I understood her vulnerabilities but believed they could be overcome. Her strong positions and political style caused Rollins and others to abandon her and flee to the establishment GOP because they could not grow a pair.

    Since she withdrew I have supported Rick Santorum, the only other true conservative in the race. I lent support to the Cain Train during my support for Bachmann because I did not want the media circus to cause his withdrawal.

    I believe Rush and Sean have supported the notion that whoever wins the GOP nomination should get our votes. Romney is not a true conservative although he was my pick in 2008 until he caved to McCain. I then held my nose and voted for McCain/Palin. (BTW, Palin is a ruse.) I will vote for the GOP nominee in 2012 for President. To do otherwise is insanity.

    My apologies Maggie. You know how I can rant sometimes.

    God bless America. (And God bless you Maggie for putting up with me.) Sorry, but I am a passionate American, love my country and want it back.

    • Stanford, no need to ever apologize here. Once I looked into Newt’s ‘ethics’ charges, I saw little humor in way it was portrayed, and I stand the fact that it was an assault on conservatism and conservatism in the classroom. I don’t care how dirty politics can be, for a Republican to exploit a Republican leader being sanctioned on partisan grounds, is to promote the Democrat agenda.

      I too have watched all of my picks fall off the ledge. Now we’re stuck with Romney or Newt. I choose Newt, but I will vigorously support Romney if I have too.

  • Maggie, I simply call ’em as I see ’em. I do not dislike Mitt Romney. I only lament his 2008 campaign. I do not lament Newt Gingich. only his past connections like the one with Al Sharpton. I don’t see that sort of problem with Rick Santorum. But things will work out as they usually do. We will have a choice that is less than we would like.

    It doesn’t matter. Barack Obama is the problem. That single focus makes it all come clear. We have one choice. Whoever is not Barack Obama. Sorry to those who conclude I am a racist for saying that. If we cannot conclude the current Administration is wrong because the leader is black and white then we must surrender to the liberal agenda. Something I will never do.

    Conservative principles, our nation’s founding, direct my politics.

    Here’s to a wonderful 2012. God bless America. Let’s get to it. We’re wasting time.

  • Pingback: Gingrich Ethics Charges: CNN Report – Complete Vindication – John Lewis Claim of “Massive Tax Fraud” a Fraud Video | Maggie's Notebook()