Now that Mitt Romney has gone on the attack against a surging Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the house is having to do some serious whitewashing of the ethics violations that forced him to resign from Congress in disgrace. Like just pretending there were no ethics violations.
The 1997 House ethics investigation into then-Speaker Newt Gingrich has resurfaced on the campaign trail, but Gingrich told CNN’s Candy Crowley that all information relevant to the scandal was already public. Gingrich said the $300,000 penalty he was ordered to pay by the House Ethics Committee was a reimbursement for the cost of the investigation, and that “on every single count, I was exonerated.” He added that many House Republicans to vote “yes” on the ethics charges against Gingrich in order to put it behind them more quickly, rather than because they believed he had done anything wrong.
Many of them? So what about the rest of them? Even in Congress, where holding each other responsible for ethics violations is rarely done, the vote to reprimand Gingrich was nearly unanimous in the House. Exactly one Republican voted no on the motion; 186 of them voted against him. And almost no one who served in Congress with him, even those who agree with him politically almost 100%, supports him. That should tell you all you need to know about him.
11 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Aquaria
January 29, 2012 at 10:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s like some law of the universe: “Newt Gingrich” and “ethics” can’t be in the same sentence, unless the word “violations” is included.
reverendrodney
January 29, 2012 at 10:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I believe that Newt’s ethics violations as well as the way in which he conducted in his affairs are relevant, for taken separately or together they expose the character of the man which is… dang, wish I had the word. Suffice to say that he is beneath contempt.
D. C. Sessions
January 29, 2012 at 10:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ain’t it funny how the POG has succeeded in laying claim to these:
* The Constitution
* Fiscal responsibility
* The Rule of Law
* Character (instead of policy) in choosing elected officials
exdrone
January 29, 2012 at 11:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Imagine having Newt as your criminal defence attorney. “I know you are up against the death penalty, but let’s just plead guilty in order to put this murder charge behind you more quickly.”
joshuaz
January 29, 2012 at 12:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In the second to last sentence should “support” be oppose?
Freeman
January 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@reverendrodney #2:
I’m sure if you ask Aquaria real nicely, she’d be happy to provide you with an appropriately descriptive word or two.
MikeMa
January 29, 2012 at 1:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Newt’s existence is a violation of nature. Way worse than any ethics issues.
TCC (fka The Christian Cynic)
January 29, 2012 at 1:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
joshuaz: No, Ed’s wording is correct (“And almost no one who served in Congress with him…supports him“).
Azkyroth
January 29, 2012 at 2:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I thought it was Santorum that surged.
John Hinkle
January 29, 2012 at 3:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I already knew what I already need to know about him. Did that come out write?
@MikeMa: *applause*
eric
January 30, 2012 at 10:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He added that many House Republicans to vote “yes” on the ethics charges against Gingrich in order to put it behind them more quickly, rather than because they believed he had done anything wrong.
That would be unethical. So, basically he’s accusing his own party – the one he lead – of committing a group ethical violation in order to cover up his lack of violation. Right.