GingRICH - Page 9

**Jiro** · 01-23-2012, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Sure, I'll help you to rationalize this Jiro. Didn't you start this thread as a "smear campaign" against Newt Gingrich?

It certainly appears that way from your OP. Since the linked article I just gave indicates that Obama staffers are committing acts of FRAUD to discredit Republicans - and since Newt Gingrich is a Republican, I would think it would be a pertinent tidbit of information.

You are a smart guy, you can figure it out.

Smear campaigns are great strategies aren't they? It distracts everyone from the real issues.

see Post #126 for purpose of this thread.

Smear Campaign? I don't even need to do that because we both know Gingrich doesn't stand a chance. He's already smeared it all by himself with lies and other fellow Republicans are smearing him as well.

Steinhauer · 01-23-2012, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

see Post #126 for purpose of this thread.

Smear Campaign? I don't even need to do that because we both know Gingrich doesn't stand a chance. He's already smeared it all by himself with lies and other fellow Republicans are smearing him as well.

Ok, let me clarify. We went over Newt's past history. He didn't lie about it. If you don't "need" to smear Gingrich, what is the purpose of this thread then? Just to troll?

You now have information that Newt's likely opponent will be Obama. You also have information that Obama's staffers are resorting to fraud to smear perceived Republican opponents.

Taking all of that info, who would more likely be willing to be honest? Remember now ... Newt never let his affair reach a point that he had to stand trial for it and lie. He told the truth.

Is it clear to you now how this all ties in together?

hint: It has been about Newt all along.

**Jiro** · 01-23-2012, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Ok, let me clarify. We went over Newt's past history. He didn't lie about it. If you don't "need" to smear Gingrich, what is the purpose of this thread then? Just to troll?

You now have information that Newt's likely opponent will be Obama. You also have information that Obama's staffers are resorting to fraud to smear perceived Republican opponents.

Taking all of that info, who would more likely be willing to be honest? Remember now ... Newt never let his affair reach a point that he had to stand trial for it and lie. He told the truth.

Is it clear to you now how this all ties in together?

hint: It has been about Newt all along.

again.... re-read Post #126 for the purpose of this thread.

Please do let me know which part of this post you do not understand.

Quote:

You're right on the dot about Gingrich's questionable sense of moral value. I just want to clarify that the purpose of this thread is to discuss about a very long history of Gingrich's questionable sense of ethic and moral value, not to gossip around about his scandalous affairs.

So back to topic - it is quite obvious that Gingrich is running some shady money-laundering scheme like Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay. A hefty portion of over $2.5 million income came from Gingrich Productions? seriously? have you seen his site? how is it so profitable? what's so profitable about it? it's fishy.

Notice the title of this thread? GingRICH? Feel free to create a new thread about his affair and your defense of him.

Steinhauer · 01-23-2012, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

again.... re-read Post #126 for the purpose of this thread.

Please do let me know which part of this post you do not understand.

Notice the title of this thread? GingRICH? Feel free to create a new thread about his affair and your defense of him.

So, you changed the rules 126 posts later? Um ... yeah buddy, I am stoopid. You created this thread to smear GingRICH from the very first post.

Anyways ... you can report this post too.

**Jiro** · 01-23-2012, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

So, you changed the rules 126 posts later? Um ... yeah buddy, I am stoopid. You created this thread to smear GingRICH from the very first post.

if you read carefully - it went downfall to some gossipy issue that I do not care for starting with your post -

GingRICH

and I have repeatedly reminded you to get back on topic which you repeatedly ignored. I created this thread to discuss about GingRICH's questionable financial dealings. Why is it that ya'all can create Obama threads to discuss about the validity of his birthplace and his religion and I can't create Gingrich thread to discuss about his shady financial dealings?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

The following is my personal opinion only.

Gingrich's adultery, which happened more than once, shows a pattern of infidelity, not just a one-time "slip." Also, there are some questions about his financial dealings that haven't been cleared up.

....

I suppose that Reba is part of smearing campaign too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Anyways ... you can report this post too.

for?

Steinhauer · 01-23-2012, 01:56 AM

Newt Gingrich Addresses Ethics Violations Charges

He addressed those ethics violations yesterday - why haven't you posted anything about it?

edit: p.s. I "like" Santorum far more than I "like" Newt. But Santorum can't beat Obama - Newt can.

**Jiro** · 01-23-2012, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Newt Gingrich Addresses Ethics Violations Charges

He addressed those ethics violations yesterday - why haven't you posted anything about it?

because I've been busy trying to get you to focus. and I'm sorry that I didn't read news diligently and religiously about Gingrich like you. and I don't read Huffingtonpost.

but

for posting it and

for proving my point about Gingrich's questionable integrity. Based on committee's reports - it has pointed out that he was in fact violating ethics and not following the regulations and also he admitted his dishonesty intended to delay the investigation.

from the article you posted -

Quote:

Eighty-four charges of ethics violations were filed against Gingrich in 1997, resulting in his being reprimanded by the House of Representatives and fined $300,000. The ethics investigation led to his eventual resignation from Congress.

Speaking Sunday on CNN, Gingrich said he was completely exonerated of the charges, and that the $300,000 penalty he paid for ethics violation was actually a 'reimbursement' for the cost of the investigation.

Do you know why he paid $300,000 for a reimbursement for the cost of the investigation?

According to House Report - Part 1 - Page 90

Statement Made to the Committee

Quote:

The letters Mr. Gingrich submitted to the Committee concerning the Renewing American Civilization complaint were very troubling to the Subcommittee. They contained definitive statements about facts that went to the heart of the issues placed before the Committee. In the case of the December 8, 1994 letter, it was in response to a direct request from the Committee for specific information relating to the partisan, political nature of the course and GOPAC's involvement in it.

Both letters were efforts by Mr. Gingrich to have the Committee dismiss the complaints without further inquiry. In such situations, the Committee does and should place great reliance on the statements of Members.

The letters were prepared by Mr. Gingrich's lawyers. After the Subcommittee deposed the lawyers, the reasons for the statements being in the letters was not made any clearer. The lawyers did not conduct any independent factual research. Looking at the information the lawyers used to write the letters, the Subcommittee was unable to find any factual basis for the inaccurate statements contained therein. A number of exhibits attached to the complaint were fax transmittal sheets from GOPAC. While this did not on its face establish anything more than GOPAC's fax machine having been used for the project, it certainly should have put the attorneys on notice that there was some relationship between the course and GOPAC that should have been examined before saying that GOPAC had absolutely no involvement in the course.

The lawyers said they relied on Mr. Gingrich and his staff to ensure that the letters were accurate; however, none of Mr. Gingrich's staff had sufficient knowledge to be able to verify the accuracy of the facts. While Mr. Gaylord and Mr. Eisenach did have sufficient knowledge to verify many of the facts, they were not asked to do so. The only person who reviewed the letters for accuracy, with sufficient knowledge to verify those facts, was Mr. Gingrich.

The Subcommittee considered the relevance of the reference to GOPAC in Mr. Gingrich's first letter to the Committee dated October 4, 1994. In that letter he stated that GOPAC was one of the entities that paid people to work on the course. Some Members of the Subcommittee believed that this was evidence of lack of intent to deceive the Committee on Mr. Gingrich's part because if he had planned to hide GOPAC's involvement, he would not have made such an inconsistent statement in the subsequent letters. Other Members of the Subcommittee and the Special Counsel appreciated this point, but believed the first letter was of little value. The state- ment in that letter was only directed to establishing that Mr. Ging- rich had not used congressional resources in developing the course. The first letter made no attempt to address the tax issues, even though it was a prominent feature of the complaint. When the Committee specifically focused Mr. Gingrich's attention on that issue and questions concerning GOPAC's involvement in the course, his response was not accurate.

During his testimony before the Subcommittee, Mr. Gingrich stated that he did not intend to mislead the Committee and apologized for his conduct. This statement was a relevant consideration for some Members of the Subcommittee, but not for others.

The Subcommittee concluded that because these inaccurate statements were provided to the Committee, this matter was not resolved as expeditiously as it could have been. This caused a controversy over the matter to arise and last for a substantial period of time, it disrupted the operations of the House, and it cost the House a substantial amount of money in order to determine the facts.

and because of Gingrich's deliberated attempt to cover it up...
interestingly enough....

Quote:

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 guess what?

Quote:

Following the release of this Statement of Alleged Violation, numerous press accounts appeared concerning this matter. In the opinion of the Subcommittee Members and the Special Counsel, a number of the press accounts indicated that Mr. Gingrich had violated the agreement concerning statements about the matter. Mr. Gingrich's counsel was notified of the Subcommittee's concerns and the Subcommittee met to consider what action to take in light of this apparent violation. The Subcommittee determined that it would not nullify the agreement. While there was serious concern about whether Mr. Gingrich had complied with the agreement, the Subcommittee was of the opinion that the best interests of the House still lay in resolving the matter without a disciplinary hearing and with the recommended sanction that its Members had previously determined was appropriate. However, Mr. Gingrich's counsel was informed that the Subcommittee believed a violation of the agreement had occurred and retained the right to withdraw from the agreement with appropriate notice to Mr. Gingrich. To date no such notice has been given.

I do not know why it has been covered up but I guess that's just the way it is. Either way - we all know that Gingrich's integrity and moral value are not suitable for the next President of United States.

**Reba** · 01-23-2012, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

... we both know Gingrich doesn't stand a chance....

That's what I thought before Saturday. Now, I'm not so sure. Apparently he can convince a lot of voters.

**Jiro** · 01-23-2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

That's what I thought before Saturday. Now, I'm not so sure. Apparently he can convince a lot of voters.

only one state so far.

rolling7 · 01-23-2012, 09:27 AM

Go back and read, again, post #23......obviously you are not getting the message.

**Jiro** · 01-23-2012, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Go back and read, again, post #23......obviously you are not getting the message.

roll along like a good boy. no one cares about what you think or say so roll along now.

rolling7 · 01-23-2012, 09:54 AM

Not until you admit wrong and stop posting falsehood on AD. I can't stop you, that is Alex's job.

**deafskeptic** · 01-23-2012, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

Didn't Newt Gingrich recently accuse Mitt Romney for being a capitalist?

There will not be a newt in the White House, so no worries.

I don't think he ever had a chance, thank goodness.

**deafskeptic** · 01-23-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

see Post #126 for purpose of this thread.

Smear Campaign? I don't even need to do that because we both know Gingrich doesn't stand a chance. He's already smeared it all by himself with lies and other fellow Republicans are smearing him as well.

Why use the rope to hang him when he's doing a fine job of hanging himself with it?

**TXgolfer** · 01-23-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

That's what I thought before Saturday. Now, I'm not so sure. Apparently he can convince a lot of voters.

His numbers are way up in Florida now.

Tousi · 01-23-2012, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

That's what I thought before Saturday. Now, I'm not so sure. Apparently he can convince a lot of voters.

Well, he's taken the early lead in Florida....

Edit: I see TX beat me, lol.....

**TXgolfer** · 01-23-2012, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

because I've been busy trying to get you to focus. and I'm sorry that I didn't read news diligently and religiously about Gingrich like you. and I don't read Huffingtonpost.

but

for posting it and

for proving my point about Gingrich's questionable integrity. Based on committee's reports - it has pointed out that he was in fact violating ethics and not following the regulations and also he admitted his dishonesty intended to delay the investigation.

from the article you posted -

Do you know why he paid $300,000 for a reimbursement for the cost of the investigation?
.

Quote:

IRS clears Newt Gingrich's college course

By Brooks Jackson/CNN

February 3, 1999
Web posted at: 11:43 a.m. EST (1643 GMT)

Newt Gingrich
WASHINGTON (February 3) -- The Internal Revenue Service Wednesday cleared former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of an alleged tax law violation in connection with a controversial college course he taught.

After considering the matter for three and a half years, the IRS issued a "technical advice memorandum" finding no violation of tax laws in the use of a tax-exempt entity to sponsor Gingrich's course, "Renewing American Civilization."

Gingrich began the course in 1993, before Republicans won control of the House and made him speaker. Gingrich's lectures were videotaped and widely distributed.

Democrats said it was a campaign gimmick and filed ethics complaints accusing him of illegal use of tax-exempt funds for political purposes. A tax expert hired by the House Ethics Committee said the course violated tax laws, and in 1997 Gingrich agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for making misleading statements to the ethics panel and failing to seek better legal advice before using tax-exempt money for the course.

As it turned out, the course was legal after all. The IRS found that the sponsoring organization, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, "did not serve the private interests of Mr. Gingrich" or Republican organizations.

The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. "The ... course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician."

The IRS memorandum was released by the Progress and Freedom Foundation along with a statement by its president, Jeff Eisenach. "This audit took too long and cost too much," he said.

IRS clears Newt Gingrich's college course - February 3, 1999

rolling7 · 01-23-2012, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

His numbers are way up in Florida now.

Did you know a lot of voters got to vote before knowing the outcome of S.C. ? Florida is one of those states that allow early voting. voters there are going to wish they waited in order to hear and read the revelations of the candidates. I've never understood voters early voting without all knowledge possible.

**saywhatkid** · 01-23-2012, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

So, you changed the rules 126 posts later? Um ... yeah buddy, I am stoopid. You created this thread to smear GingRICH from the very first post.
Anyways ... you can report this post too.

Absolutely. Your only response (a very well-versed one) has been to attempt to either hijack the thread, or justify his affairs by posting Democrats that had affairs. Smearing Gingrich is far closer to the thread topic than Obama. Since you have no defense, you paint a picture with the same brush you always use; a long list of Democratic ethics issues, as if this makes the Republicans look better. When both sides are covered in mud, how can either side look good?

BTW, nobody needs to report your posts. It is not a censorship issue here; it is a matter of forum etiquette. Why not create several more Obama smearing threads where you can present your redundant case? We wanna smear Newt over here.

AlleyCat · 01-23-2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Absolutely. Your only response (a very well-versed one) has been to attempt to either hijack the thread, or justify ....

But ... but ... but ... that is his calling sign. It's expected of him!!! When else have we ever seen anything other than mind-numbing nonsense?

**saywhatkid** · 01-23-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

But ... but ... but ... that is his calling sign. It's expected of him!!! When else have we ever seen anything other than mind-numbing nonsense?

**Jiro** · 01-23-2012, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

IRS clears Newt Gingrich's college course - February 3, 1999

nice try but -

According to your source -

Quote:

A tax expert hired by the House Ethics Committee said the course violated tax laws, and in 1997 Gingrich agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for making misleading statements to the ethics panel and failing to seek better legal advice before using tax-exempt money for the course.

and

Washingtonpost.com: Ethics Committee Drops Last of 84 Ethics Charges Against Gingrich

Quote:

The House ethics committee dropped the three remaining ethics charges against Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) yesterday, despite finding that Gingrich repeatedly violated one rule by using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda.

Quote:

A third allegation that Gingrich benefited personally from $250,000 in GOPAC "Newt Support" and should have reported it as income for federal tax purposes was also dropped by the ethics committee for lack of evidence.

and we both know that despite of lack of evidence, Gingrich is continuing to do shady financial dealings because it's simply how it is at the hill. it's just a matter of time till karma catches up with him.

**TXgolfer** · 01-23-2012, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

nice try but -

According to your source -

and

Washingtonpost.com: Ethics Committee Drops Last of 84 Ethics Charges Against Gingrich

and we both know that despite of lack of evidence, Gingrich is continuing to do shady financial dealings because it's simply how it is at the hill. it's just a matter of time till karma catches up with him.

*shrug* IRS says the House Committee was wrong. 84 ethics charges brought....83 dropped. 1 settled and then cleared by the IRS.

**Jiro** · 01-23-2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

*shrug* IRS says the House Committee was wrong. 84 ethics charges brought....83 dropped. 1 settled and then cleared by the IRS.

sure. life's that simple.

DeafCaroline · 01-23-2012, 02:23 PM

:shrug:

If it was just one or two allegations and charges against Newt...would be easy to brush off or dismiss but he has a looooong history of having allegations and charges made against him in regards to financial dealings, kinda hard to ignore all of that history especially when something new keeps popping up.

One blogger had a theory the reason Newt did well in SC and Florida is because evangelicals and religious groups love a redemption story.

Anyway, he will never be President, yay!

Babyblue · 01-23-2012, 02:27 PM

To be honest... Romney isn't any better.

They both have history of fraud.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan...da-ad-20120120

Babyblue · 01-23-2012, 02:28 PM

Vote for the lesser evil is all I can say.

**TXgolfer** · 01-23-2012, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafCaroline

:shrug:

If it was just one or two allegations and charges against Newt...would be easy to brush off or dismiss but he has a looooong history of having allegations and charges made against him in regards to financial dealings, kinda hard to ignore all of that history especially when something new keeps popping up.

One blogger had a theory the reason Newt did well in SC and Florida is because evangelicals and religious groups love a redemption story.

Anyway, he will never be President, yay!

Let me know what the blogger says about his surge elsewhere.

DeafCaroline · 01-23-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Let me know what the blogger says about his surge elsewhere.

nah, don't feel like it. and especially not on this thread which has had very few intelligent posts.

**TXgolfer** · 01-23-2012, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafCaroline

nah, don't feel like it. and especially not on this thread which has had very few intelligent posts.

Ok

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

01-23-2012, 01:56 AM	#246 (permalink)
Steinhauer Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	Newt Gingrich Addresses Ethics Violations Charges He addressed those ethics violations yesterday - why haven't you posted anything about it? edit: p.s. I "like" Santorum far more than I "like" Newt. But Santorum can't beat Obama - Newt can.

01-23-2012, 09:27 AM	#250 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	Go back and read, again, post #23......obviously you are not getting the message.

01-23-2012, 09:54 AM	#252 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	Not until you admit wrong and stop posting falsehood on AD. I can't stop you, that is Alex's job.

01-23-2012, 02:23 PM	#265 (permalink)
DeafCaroline Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,889	:shrug: If it was just one or two allegations and charges against Newt...would be easy to brush off or dismiss but he has a looooong history of having allegations and charges made against him in regards to financial dealings, kinda hard to ignore all of that history especially when something new keeps popping up. One blogger had a theory the reason Newt did well in SC and Florida is because evangelicals and religious groups love a redemption story. Anyway, he will never be President, yay!

01-23-2012, 02:27 PM	#266 (permalink)
Babyblue Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 12,001	To be honest... Romney isn't any better. They both have history of fraud. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan...da-ad-20120120

01-23-2012, 02:28 PM	#267 (permalink)
Babyblue Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 12,001	Vote for the lesser evil is all I can say.