New Romney Florida ad: You don’t really want to nominate a disgraced Freddie Mac shill, do you?

My taxes paid for most of this investigation, so I think I have the right to excerpt as much of it as I want.

C. Statement of Alleged Violation
Based on the information described above, the Special Counsel proposed a Statement of Alleged Violations (“SAV”) to the Subcommittee on December 12, 1996. The SAV contained three counts: (1) Mr. Gingrich’s activities on behalf of ALOF in regard to AOW/ACTV, and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and approval, constituted a violation of ALOF’s status under section 501(c)(3); (2) Mr. Gingrich’s activities on behalf of Kennesaw State College Foundation, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Reinhardt College in regard to the Renewing American Civilization course, and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and approval, constituted a violation of those organizations’ status under section 501(c)(3); and (3) Mr. Gingrich had provided information to the Committee, directly or through counsel, that was material to matters under consideration by the Committee, which Mr. Gingrich knew or should have known was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.

1. Deliberations on the Tax Counts
There was a difference of opinion regarding whether to issue the SAV as drafted on the tax counts. Concern was expressed about deciding this tax issue in the context of an ethics proceeding. This led the discussion to the question of the appropriate focus for the Subcommittee. A consensus began to build around the view that the proper focus was on the conduct of the Member, rather than a resolution of issues of tax law. From the beginning of the Preliminary Inquiry, there was a desire on the part of each of the Members to find a way to reach a unanimous conclusion in this matter. The Members felt it was important to confirm the bipartisan nature of the ethics process. The discussion turned to what steps Mr. Gingrich had taken in regard to these two projects to ensure they were done in accord with the provisions of 501(c)(3). In particular, the Subcommittee was concerned with the fact that: (1) Mr. Gingrich had been “very well aware” of the American Campaign Academy case prior to embarking on these projects; (2) he had been involved with 501(c)(3) organizations to a sufficient degree to know that politics and tax-deductible contributions are, as his tax counsel said, an “explosive mix;” (3) he was clearly involved in a project that had significant partisan, political goals, and he had taken an aggressive approach to the tax laws in regard to both AOW/ACTV; and (4) Renewing American Civilization projects. Even Mr. Gingrich’s own tax lawyer told the Subcommittee that if Mr. Gingrich had come to him before embarking on these projects, he would have advised him to not use a 501(c)(3) organization for the dissemination of AOW/ACTV or Renewing American Civilization. Had Mr. Gingrich sought and followed this advice, he would not have used the 501(c)(3) organizations, would not have had his projects subsidized by taxpayer funds, and would not have created this controversy that has caused significant disruption to the House. The Subcommittee concluded that there were significant and substantial warning signals to Mr. Gingrich that he should have heeded prior to embarking on these projects. Despite these warnings, Mr. Gingrich did not seek any legal advice to ensure his conduct conformed with the provisions of 501(c)(3). In looking at this conduct in light of all the facts and circumstances, the Subcommittee was faced with a disturbing choice. Either Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he was aware that it would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3) organization for his projects, or he was reckless in not taking care that, as a Member of Congress, he made sure that his conduct conformed with the law in an area where he had ample warning that his intended course of action was fraught with legal peril. The Subcommittee decided that regardless of the resolution of the 501(c)(3) tax question, Mr. Gingrich’s conduct in this regard was improper, did not reflect creditably on the House, and was deserving of sanction.
2. Deliberations Concerning the Letters
The Subcommittee’s deliberation concerning the letters provided to the Committee centered on the question of whether Mr. Gingrich intentionally submitted inaccurate information. There was a belief that the record developed before the Subcommittee was not conclusive on this point. The Special Counsel suggested that a good argument could be made, based on the record, that Mr. Gingrich did act intentionally, however it would be difficult to establish that with a high degree of certainty. The culmination of the evidence on this topic again left the Subcommittee with a disturbing choice. Either Mr. Gingrich intentionally made misrepresentations to the Committee, or he was again reckless in the way he provided information to the Committee concerning a very important matter. The standard applicable to the Subcommittee’s deliberations was whether there is reason to believe that Mr. Gingrich had acted as charged in this count of the SAV. All felt that this standard had been met in regard to the allegation that Mr. Gingrich “knew” that the information he provided to the Committee was inaccurate. However, there was considerable discussion to the effect that if Mr. Gingrich wanted to admit to submitting information to the Committee that he “should have known” was inaccurate, the Subcommittee would consider deleting the allegation that he knew the information was inaccurate. The Members were of the opinion that if there were to be a final adjudication of the matter, taking into account the higher standard of proof that is involved at that level, “should have known” was an appropriate framing of the charge in light of all the facts and circumstances.

3. Discussions with Mr. Gingrich’s Counsel and Recommended Sanction
On December 13, 1996, the Subcommittee issued an SAV charging Mr. Gingrich with three counts of violations of House Rules. Two counts concerned the failure to seek legal advice in regard to the 501(c)(3) projects, and one count concerned providing the Committee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate. At the time the Subcommittee voted this SAV, the Members discussed the matter among themselves and reached a consensus that it would be in the best interests of the House for the matter to be resolved without going through a disciplinary hearing. It was estimated that such a hearing could take up to three months to complete and would not begin for several months. Because of this, it was anticipated that the House would have to deal with this matter for another six months. Even though the Subcommittee Members felt that it would be advantageous to the House to avoid a disciplinary hearing, they all were committed to the proposition that any resolution of the matter had to reflect adequately the seriousness of the offenses. To this end, the Subcommittee Members discussed and agreed upon a recommended sanction that was fair in light of the conduct reflected in this matter, but explicitly recognized that the full Committee would make the ultimate decision as to the recommendation to the fullHouse as to the appropriate sanction. In determining what the appropriate sanction should be in this matter, the Subcommittee and Special Counsel considered the seriousness of the conduct, the level of care exercised by Mr. Gingrich, the disruption caused to the House by the conduct, the cost to the House in having to pay for an extensive investigation, and the repetitive nature of the conduct. As is noted above, the Subcommittee was faced with troubling choices in each of the areas covered by the Statement of Alleged Violation. Either Mr. Gingrich’s conduct in regard to the 501(c)(3) organizations and the letters he submitted to the Committee was intentional or it was reckless. Neither choice reflects creditably on the House. While the Subcommittee was not able to reach a comfortable conclusion on these issues, the fact that the choice was presented is a factor in determining the appropriate sanction. In addition, the violation does not represent only a single instance of reckless conduct. Rather, over a number of years and in a number of situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities. Under the Rules of the Committee, a reprimand is the appropriate sanction for a serious violation of House Rules and a censure is appropriate for a more serious violation of House Rules. Rule 20(g), Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It was the opinion of the Subcommittee that this matter fell somewhere in between. Accordingly, the Subcommittee and the Special Counsel recommend that the appropriate sanction should be a reprimand and a payment reimbursing the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000. Mr. Gingrich has agreed that this is the appropriate sanction in this matter. Beginning on December 15, 1996, Mr. Gingrich’s counsel and the Special Counsel began discussions directed toward resolving the matter without a disciplinary hearing. The discussions lasted through December 20, 1996. At that time an understanding was reached by both Mr. Gingrich and the Subcommittee concerning this matter. That understanding was put on the record on December 21, 1996 by Mr. Cole follows:

Mr. Cole: The subcommittee has had an opportunity to review the facts in this case, and has had extensive discussion about the appropriate resolution of this matter.
Mr. Cardin: If I might just add here to your next understanding, the Members of the subcommittee, prior to the adoption of the Statement of Alleged Violation, were concerned that the nonpartisan deliberations of the subcommittee continue beyond the findings of the subcommittee. Considering the record of the full Ethics Committee in the 104th Congress and the partisan environment in the full House, the Members of the subcommittee felt that it was important to exercise bipartisan leadership beyond the workings of the subcommittee. * * *
Mr. Cole: It was the opinion of the Members of the subcommittee and the Special Counsel, that based on the facts of this case as they are currently known, the appropriate sanction for the conduct described in the original Statement of Alleged Violations is a reprimand and the payment of $300,000 toward the cost of the preliminary inquiry.
In light of this opinion, the subcommittee Members and the Special Counsel intend to recommend to the full committee that this be the sanction recommended by the full committee to the House. The Members also intend to support this as the sanction in the committee and on the Floor of the House.
However, if new facts are developed or brought to the attention of the Members of the subcommittee, they are free to change their opinions.
The Subcommittee, through its counsel, has communicated this to Mr. Gingrich, through his counsel. Mr. Gingrich has agreed that if the subcommittee will amend the Statement of Alleged Violations to be one count, instead of three counts, however, still including all of the conduct described in the original Statement of Alleged Violations, and will allow the addition of some language which reflects aspects of the record in this matter concerning the involvement of Mr. Gingrich’s counsel in the preparation of the letters described in the original Count 3 of the Statement of Alleged Violations,88 he will admit to the entire Statement of Alleged Violation and agree to the view of the subcommittee Members and the Special Counsel as to the appropriate sanction
In light of Mr. Gingrich’s admission to the Statement of Alleged Violation, the subcommittee is of the view that the rules of the committee will not require that an adjudicatory hearing take place; however, a sanction hearing will need to be held under the rules.
The subcommittee and Mr. Gingrich desire to have the sanction hearing concluded as expeditiously as possible, but it is understood that this will not take place at the expense of orderly procedure and a full and fair opportunity for the full committee to be informed of any information necessary for each Member of the full committee to be able to make a decision at the sanction hearing.
After the subcommittee has voted a new Statement of Alleged Violation, Mr. Gingrich will file his answer admitting to it. The subcommittee will seek the permission of the full committee to release the Statement of Alleged Violation, Mr. Gingrich’s answer, and a brief press release which has been approved by Mr. Gingrich’s counsel. At the same time, Mr. Gingrich will release a brief press release that has been approved by the subcommittee’s Special Counsel.
Both the subcommittee and Mr. Gingrich agree that no public comment should be made about this matter while it is still pending. This includes having surrogates sent out to comment on the matter and attempt to mischaracterize it.
Accordingly, beyond the press statements described above, neither Mr. Gingrich nor any Member of the subcommittee may make any further public comment. Mr. Gingrich understands that if he violates this provision, the subcommittee will have the option of reinstating the original Statement of Alleged Violations and allowing Mr. Gingrich an opportunity to withdraw his answer.
And I should note that it is the intention of the subcommittee that “public comments” refers to press statements; that, obviously, we are free and Mr. Gingrich is free to have private conversations with Members of Congress about these matters.

I dunno the source material really does not make it seem like there is any ethical violation at all. In fact, it looks like the entirety of his ethics charge was, he applied tax law appropriately as evidenced by the IRS finding there to be no merit to the idea that any of the parties were wrong in their use of the law but in the course of defending himself, his lawyer submitted in his name a document that was in error. Anyone at all ever see a legitimate carriage of justice where the person is railroaded through a 2 year long investigation for charges that had no merit and is later fined because their lawyer submitted something incorrect and there was no intention to deceive?

You know, lots of people go through these investigations in the country. Duke La Cross team rape charges come to mind. What I rarely ever see happen is that people are despicable enough to attack them after they have been found not guilty.

Remember that these charges were filed because Newt Gingrich was making an educational course about America to get the We The People back involved in politics. They were brought as payback for having ousted another Speaker of the House that really was ethically challenged in 1988. The charges were brought by the Democrats, and at the time of the charges, the Republicans were angry with Newt because he was working hard at the time to move power out of Washington and back into the hands of We the People at just the point in time that they finally had taken the Majority of the House of Representatives. They must have thought Contract with America was just a ploy to win elections and not meant to really be passed. Is there anything in the record since this ethics charge that shows that the Republican party has spent one minute trying to reduce the size of government or give any power back to the People?

Newt was the last Republican in office to have ever reduced the footprint of government on citizens backs. I wonder why establishment Republicans night want to stop you from voting for him. I say it is because they know that with him as president they will lose power!

NEWT 2012!

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 9:15 PM

The stayright type bigots always spam the Romney threads. He has no honor or shame and will continue until the wee hours of the morning.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I do not like your stance, but I will say I feel badly that you are being attacked based on your religion.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM