SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Paul Smith who wrote (466399)1/21/2012 7:53:16 AM
From: goldworldnet3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793884
 
They both should.

hotair.com

Romney advisor John Sununu to Gingrich: How about releasing those ethics documents?
POSTED AT 6:35 PM ON JANUARY 20, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

An exclusive for Larry O’Connor and Breitbart TV. This is the talking point du jour from Team Romney, a heavy-handed attempt to shift attention from Mitt’s tax returns to Newt’s character and electability. (Go figure that they’re pushing this at the same time stories about his ex-wife are in the news.) If you’re unfamiliar with the particulars of Gingrich’s ethics reprimand, this NBC piece will fill you in. The ethics report itself is publicly available, but Team Mitt cares less about what’s in it than making Gingrich look shady for not releasing the background materials. Romney himself pushed for full disclosure at an appearance today with Nikki Haley, taking care (as all primary candidates do) to point to what Democrats might do with the information down the road as a reason for why we need damaging info on his opponent right now. (Sununu refers explicitly to an “October surprise.”) Although, in fairness, Pelosi — who was part of the ethics committee that looked into Gingrich’s ethics problem — has dropped hints about “conversations” she might be willing to have later about the investigation, unethical though that may be. Said Romney’s top advisor of the allegedly one million pages of background material that Newt hasn’t released, “It’s like a ticking time bomb, the ultimate oppo file.”

Newt’s response to Mitt? Bombs away:

He doesn’t release anything, he doesn’t answer anything, and he’s even confused about whether or not he will ever release anything and then he decides to pick a fight over releasing something?

He could have, today, released his tax records so the voters of South Carolina could discover something.

Hs father, by the way, released them a year before the election and released 12 years. His father didn’t stand around going “gee maybe I will, maybe I won’t.’ I think it’s really very confusing , because after, come on give me a break.

I refuse to take seriously any request from the Romney campaign to disclose anything, because they clear do not disclose anything on any level that involves him.

One problem for Romney that Gingrich doesn’t have is that even some of the big names on his own side think he should release his tax returns. Chris Christie, a potential VP, said so a few days ago; today Bob McDonnell, another potential VP, agreed. Even Scott Brown, who wouldn’t be a senator today without Romney’s help, is calling on him to disclose in order to deny Elizabeth Warren an easy class-warfare talking point. I find it hard to believe the ethics report doesn’t contain most of the damaging stuff Democrats learned about Gingrich at the time; they were looking to publicly embarrass the sitting Speaker, so what incentive did they have to bury the juicy stuff? But like I say, pressing Newt on this isn’t really about getting him to turn over mysterious documents. It’s simply an excuse to remind people of his ethics reprimand at a moment when Romney’s desperate for voters to think he’s the only electable candidate in the field.

* * *



To: Paul Smith who wrote (466399)1/21/2012 8:49:57 AM
From: MrLucky5 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793884
 
<<John Sununu to Gingrich: How about releasing those ethics documents?>>

You might wish to look at the Newt site. He speaks about the ethics investigation.

Sununu, and others: Another example of those who are carrying water for Romney.

I have looked at all the GOP candidates sites and, to this point, the Gingrich site seems to provide more info on past decisions and actions than any of the others.



To: Paul Smith who wrote (466399)1/21/2012 1:28:32 PM
From: Bridge Player4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793884
 
John Sununu to Gingrich: How about releasing those ethics documents?

It isn't clear to me exactly what anyone wants released that has not been in the public realm for many years now. The full ethics committee report has been available online since 1997.

politico.com

washingtonpost.com

washingtonpost.com

[The speaker's office issued a statement noting that yesterday's dismissal of the last three charges means that 83 of the 84 ethics allegations filed by Democrats have been dropped. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics panel is formally known, also decided to defer to a federal judge's decision to dismiss an allegation that GOPAC improperly subsidized Gingrich's 1990 reelection campaign.

U.S. District Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer in 1996 threw out a Federal Elections Commission lawsuit contending that GOPAC broke election laws by assisting federal candidates and not making its donor lists and spending reports public.

The ethics panel was "persuaded by the court's findings" that the laws were not violated, Hansen and Berman wrote.

"It appears to us that to the extent that GOPAC was exonerated by the court, you are by implication exonerated as well," they wrote to Gingrich.]

The only charge by the ethics committee that was not dropped involved Gingrich having signed an official statement to the committee that was prepared by his attorneys, and included information that was incorrrect. He acknowledged responsibility for the error, and paid a $300,000 fine.

The IRS subsequently found that the use of his tax-exempt 501C foundation in preparing the "Renewing American Civilization" course did NOT in fact violate tax law, contrary to the charges by the committee.

This is all a very old story. Newt's opponents, the media, and of course all the Democrats, just love to keep it alive, using it to hurt his candidacy.



To: Paul Smith who wrote (466399)1/21/2012 4:40:08 PM
From: Neeka1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793884
 
Are Mr. Sununu and Mr. Romney incapable of doing a web search?

IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH



January 17, 1997. --Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed



Mrs. Johnson, from the Committee on Standards of Official

Conduct, submitted the following

REPORT



I. Introduction

A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 7, 1994, a complaint was filed with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ("Committee") against Representative Newt Gingrich by Ben Jones, Mr. Gingrich's opponent in his 1994 campaign for re-election. The complaint centered on a course taught by Mr. Gingrich called "Renewing American Civilization." Among other things, the complaint alleged that Mr. Gingrich had used his congressional staff to work on the course in violation of House Rules. The complaint also alleged that Mr. Gingrich had created a college course under the sponsorship of 501(c)(3) organizations in order "to meet certain political, not educational, objectives" and, therefore, caused a violation of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code to occur. In partial support of the allegation that the course was a partisan, political project, the complaint alleged that the course was under the control of GOPAC, a political action committee of which Mr. Gingrich was the General Chairman.

Mr. Gingrich responded to this complaint in letters dated October 4, 1994, and December 8, 1994, but the matter was not resolved before the end of the 103rd Congress. On January 26, 1995, Representative David Bonior filed an amended version of the complaint originally filed by Mr. Jones. It restated the allegations concerning the misuse of tax-exempt organizations and contained additional allegations. Mr. Gingrich responded to that complaint in a letter from his counsel dated March 27, 1995.

On December 6, 1995, the Committee voted to initiate a Preliminary Inquiry into the allegations concerning the misuse of tax-exempt organizations. The Committee appointed an Investigative Subcommittee ("Subcommittee") and instructed it to:



determine if there is reason to believe that Representative Gingrich's activities in relation to the college course "Renewing American Civilization" were in violation of section 501(c)(3) or whether any foundation qualified under section 501(c)(3), with respect to the course, violated its status with the knowledge and approval of Representative Gingrich . . . . The Committee also resolved to appoint a Special Counsel to assist in the Preliminary Inquiry. On December 22, 1995, the Committee appointed James M. Cole, a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave LLP, as the Special Counsel. Mr. Cole's contract was signed January 3, 1996, and he began his work. On September 26, 1996, the Subcommittee announced that, in light of certain facts discovered during the Preliminary Inquiry, the investigation was being expanded to include the following additional areas:

1) Whether Representative Gingrich provided accurate, reliable, and complete information concerning the course entitled "Renewing American Civilization," GOPAC's relationship to the course entitled "Renewing American Civilization," or the Progress and Freedom Foundation in the course of communicating with the Committee, directly or through counsel (House Rule 43, Cl. 1); 2) Whether Representative Gingrich's relationship with the Progress and Freedom Foundation, including but not limited to his involvement with the course entitled "Renewing American Civilization," violated the foundation's status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations (House Rule 43, Cl. 1);

3) Whether Representative Gingrich's use of the personnel and facilities of the Progress and Freedom Foundation constituted a use of unofficial resources for official purposes (House Rule 45); and

4) Whether Representative Gingrich's activities on behalf of the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation violated its status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations or whether the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation violated its status with the knowledge and approval of Representative Gingrich (House Rule 43, Cl. 1).

As discussed below, 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) organizations. 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. B. INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS

The investigation of this matter began on January 3, 1996, and lasted through December 12, 1996. In the course of the investigation, approximately 90 subpoenas or requests for documents were issued, approximately 150,000 pages of documents were reviewed, and approximately 70 people were interviewed. Most of the interviews were conducted by Mr. Cole outside the presence of the Subcommittee. A court reporter transcribed the interviews and the transcripts were made available to the Members of the Subcommittee. Some of the interviews were conducted before the Members of the Subcommittee primarily to explore the issue of whether Mr. Gingrich had provided the Committee, directly or through counsel, inaccurate, unreliable, or incomplete information.

During the Preliminary Inquiry, Mr. Cole interviewed Mr. Gingrich twice and Mr. Gingrich appeared before the Subcommittee twice. Several draft discussion documents, with notebooks of exhibits, were prepared for the Subcommittee in order to brief the Members on the findings and status of the Preliminary Inquiry. After receiving the discussion documents, the Subcommittee met to discuss the legal and factual questions at issue.

In most investigations, people who were involved in the events under investigation are interviewed and asked to describe the events. This practice has some risk with respect to the reliability of the evidence gathered because, for example, memories fade and can change when a matter becomes controversial and subject to an investigation. One advantage the Subcommittee had in this investigation was the availability of a vast body of documentation from multiple sources that had been created contemporaneously with the events under investigation. A number of documents central to the analysis of the matter, in fact, had been written by Mr. Gingrich. Thus, the documents provided a unique, contemporaneous view of people's purposes, motivations, and intentions with respect to the facts at issue. This Report relies heavily, but not exclusively, on an analysis of those documents to describe the acts, as well as Mr. Gingrich's purpose, motivations, and intentions.

As the Report proceeds through the facts, there is discussion of conservative and Republican political philosophy. The Committee and the Special Counsel, however, do not take any positions with respect to the validity of this or any other political philosophy, nor do they take any positions with respect to the desirability of the dissemination of this or any other political philosophy. Mr. Gingrich's political philosophy and its dissemination is discussed only insofar as it is necessary to examine the issues in this matter.

C. SUMMARY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S FACTUAL FINDINGS

The Subcommittee found that in regard to two projects, Mr. Gingrich engaged in activity involving 501(c)(3) organizations that was substantially motivated by partisan, political goals. The Subcommittee also found that Mr. Gingrich provided the Committee with material information about one of those projects that was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.

etc................................

washingtonpost.com



To: Paul Smith who wrote (466399)1/22/2012 2:02:31 AM
From: KLP2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793884
 
Newt’s Ethics Records Publicly Available, IRS Ruled in His Favor

by Charles C. Johnson

In an exclusive with Larry O’Connor earlier today, Governor John H. Sununu called on Newt Gingrich to release the records pertaining to a 1990s congressional ethics investigation, in a move to defray attention to Romney’s decision not to release his taxes.

“Three out of four Republicans had to vote against him [on the ethics panel]. Whatever Nancy Pelosi knows, Barack Obama knows.” Sununu worried about the “October surprise” potential of whatever is in those documents.

Governor Sununu Tells Gingrich to Release Records

The ethics report on Newt Gingrich is publicly available, but has been construed as politically motivated. The alleged violations concerned a course that Gingrich taught at Kennesaw State College while serving in Congress. The course’s promoters received financial support from “individuals, corporations and foundations,” promising that the project qualified for tax-exempt status. The ethics committee ultimately concluded that the course was “actually a coordinated effort” to “help in achieving a partisan, political goal” — something that would run afoul of its tax-exempt status.

And yet, when the IRS looked into those accusations in a three-year investigation, it found that the donations to Gingrich’s charity were “consistent with its stated exempt purposes,” and Gingrich’s course and course book “were educational in content,” according to The Washington Post in 1999. By then, Gingrich had left office, preferring retirement to a fight over leadership.

Gingrich adamantly denied violating the law, but ultimately agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for making misleading statements to the ethics committee.

It appears that Gingrich was fined, mostly for political cover to the Republicans. The IRS declared that Gingrich’s course ”was educational and never favored or opposed a candidate for public office.”

Still it’s curious as to why Romney’s surrogates are making this an issue, and why Governor John Sununu, especially, is making a big deal of it.

After all, Sununu had his share of ethics problems. The Washington Post reported that, as White House Chief of Staff, that Sununu’s jets “took him to fat-cat Republican fund-raisers, ski lodges, golf resorts and even his dentist in Boston.” Sununu was forced to pay back $47,000 to the government for the flights on the orders of White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, with the help of the Republican Party but reimbursements were at commercial rates, which are about one-tenth the cost of the actual flights; one ski trip to Vail, Colorado alone had cost taxpayers $86,330. Sununu ultimately resigned in disgrace.

Sununu and Gingrich fought often and openly over George H. W. Bush’s decision to raise taxes in 1990. Sununu thought that Gingrich should have been more supportive of increasing taxes.

George H. W. Bush with Sununu

As Sununu recalled:

“I specifically asked Newt Gingrich if he would support it, and he said, ‘yes,’” Sununu told The Union Leader in December 2011. “The next day, for whatever reason, and nobody has ever been able to explain it to us, Gingrich decided that he was going to oppose it.”

Gingrich, for his part, denies Sununu’s version of events and says that he has consistently opposed raising taxes. The egos clashed and Gingrich, losing the battle over taxes, won the war when the Republicans won the House of Representatives in 1994 on an anti-tax promise.