PDA

View Full Version : Wu is still in Congress???



Soflasnapper
07-30-2011, 04:31 PM
Though Democrats stuck together to reject Boehnerís plan on Friday, eleven Democrats broke off and joined Republicans to shoot down Reidís plan on the debt ceiling. They were Reps. John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Bruce Braley (Iowa), Dave Loebsack (Iowa), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Mike Ross (Ark.), Kurt Schrader (Ore.), Peter Visclosky (Ind.) and David Wu (Ore.)

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60292.html#ixzz1Td9ReceW


Thought he resigned? Must not have taken place yet?

Qtec
07-31-2011, 01:23 AM
Its amazing. The guy has been mentally unstable for a while now.

Q

LWW
07-31-2011, 03:33 AM
He's a democrook ... what do you expect?

Sev
07-31-2011, 06:48 AM
Perhaps he is waiting for it to blow over.

LWW
07-31-2011, 07:00 AM
Or a job offer from Larry Flynt?

Soflasnapper
07-31-2011, 05:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He's a democrook ... what do you expect? </div></div>

He's already announced his resignation, after trying hard to avoid that denouement.

What I expect is that when he resigned, he'd leave the body, and before now. That's my surprise.

It wasn't my understanding that he simply announced he wouldn't seek re-election, and would stay to the end of his term. Rather, that he RESIGNED.

Effective when is the question, and evidently, not immediately.

LWW
08-01-2011, 03:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He's a democrook ... what do you expect? </div></div>

He's already announced his resignation, after trying hard to avoid that denouement.

What I expect is that when he resigned, he'd leave the body, and before now. That's my surprise.

It wasn't my understanding that he simply announced he wouldn't seek re-election, and would stay to the end of his term. Rather, that he RESIGNED.

Effective when is the question, and evidently, not immediately. </div></div>

He's a democrook ... what did you expect?

Sev
08-01-2011, 07:07 AM
It appears that he voting against the democrats.

Would it be revenge?

Soflasnapper
08-01-2011, 10:56 AM
Funny. But stupid.

For wasn't Weiner a Democrat? I surely thought so. Isn't he out? That's my understanding.

Perhaps you have evidence that AW's still voting I haven't seen?

Or evidence that Wu didn't announce his retirement?

Or examples of Democrats who announced their retirements and never left the House or the Senate?

Soflasnapper
08-01-2011, 11:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It appears that he voting against the democrats.

Would it be revenge? </div></div>

Well it sure isn't politics, as in, the people want it so he's going against the Reid plan to save his job in the future.

He'd be wholly free to vote any way, and I don't think the people with him are opposing Reid's plan from the left. Actually, I've never heard of any of them.

Soflasnapper
08-01-2011, 11:22 AM
And the answer is (drumroll, please...)......

Washington -- Rep. David Wu announced his resignation from Congress today, moments after U.S. senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden called for his resignation.

The Democrat said in a statement that he would leave office after Congress resolves the debt ceiling crisis.

"With great sadness, I therefore intend to resign effective upon the resolution of the debt ceiling crisis. This is the right decision for my family, the institution of the House, and my colleagues."

LWW
08-01-2011, 01:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Funny. But stupid.

For wasn't Weiner a Democrat? I surely thought so. Isn't he out? That's my understanding.

Perhaps you have evidence that AW's still voting I haven't seen?

Or evidence that Wu didn't announce his retirement?

Or examples of Democrats who announced their retirements and never left the House or the Senate? </div></div>

The issue wasn't Weiner ... and Weiner held out for a good job offer.

And, even if I give you Weiner as an exception, let's add as a counterweight of historical truth:

- Bawnie Fwank, who had a male prostitution ring being ran from his condo and his boyfriend had marijuana growing at his home and Bawnie Fwank was present during the bust ... yet stays in congress and is a committee chair.

- Teddy Kennedy ran a car off the bridge and it hit so hard it knocked Mary Jo Kopechne's panties off her and into the glove box, following which Teddy left her to die.

- Impeached federal judge Alcee Hastings who is still in office.

- Robert Cornelius Calvin Sales Byrd Junior who was a Klan Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops ... yet was elected to the US senate for decades by the residents of Korn Kobb Kounty.

- John Murtha who accused our heroic Marines of cold blooded murder and was the unindicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM scandal ... yet remained in congress until his death.

I could go on ... but that should keep you busy inventing excuses for a bit.

LWW
08-02-2011, 02:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It appears that he voting against the democrats.

Would it be revenge? </div></div>

Wu votes ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ZZ53860385.jpg

<span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 20pt'>GR-R-R-REAT!</span></span>

Soflasnapper
08-02-2011, 02:17 PM
These men you mention stood for election or re-election, and their constituents put them in as their representatives, as is their right under our system.

If you want them to be unelected, move to their districts and vote against them, or send your money to their opponents in their primaries or general elections, as would be your right.

However, you have zero right to tell their districts who they want to represent them. If you think you do, post your thunderous edicts wherever you wish, and see if anyone obeys your dictates.

Oh, wait, you HAVE! With what results you've noticed, to date?

LWW
08-03-2011, 03:09 AM
How lame can you get?

The point was that R's almost always will resign, and almost always almost immediately, when caught in such scandals ... while for a democrook it is more likely than not a resume' enhancer.

You then offered Anthony Weiner as evidence that I was wrong.

I pointed out that Weiner was the exception for the democrooks and not the rule.

You then proceeded with your usual defense of the party ... which actually proved that the democrook party prefers to run common criminals, miscreants, and lechers even when honorable men and women are available. They are able to do so because, for decades, the typical democrook voter has been little more than a bot.

Grow up.

Soflasnapper
08-03-2011, 05:43 PM
Except for Republicans Vitter, Ensign, Hastert, Gingrich, Livingston, Cunningham, DeLay, and Packwood you mean? There's more, of course, that's just from memory.

All these men stuck around for some time after their scandals were known. They mainly went out, if they did, in the final chapters of their scandals. For instance, the GOP caucus was ready to annoint Speaker-elect Livingston, giving him a standing ovation, as his scandal became known.

LWW
08-04-2011, 05:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except for Republicans Vitter, Ensign, Hastert, Gingrich, Livingston, Cunningham, DeLay, and Packwood you mean? There's more, of course, that's just from memory.

All these men stuck around for some time after their scandals were known. They mainly went out, if they did, in the final chapters of their scandals. For instance, the GOP caucus was ready to annoint Speaker-elect Livingston, giving him a standing ovation, as his scandal became known.

</div></div>

Don't you just feel silly now.

John Eric Ensign. Scandal broke in 11/09. Announced resignation in 4/11. Did not seek to retain office.

Newton Leroy Gingrich Junior. Had an affair, sans perjury about same, which was disclosed after a Larry Flynt slander campaign ... following the Clinton White House illegally accessing raw FBI files on Gingrich and others ... and resigned days after being elected to an 11th term.

Robert Linlithgow Livingston Junior. Also confessed to having had an affair ... sans perjury ... in the Clinton era. Had been elected as SOTH. Resigned both the speakership and the congress. Did not seek another term. Called on Clinton to resign also ... which he obviously refused, deciding instead to cling to power and confess on his last day in office. This made Clinton the only convicted felon to hold the presidency, as well as his disbarment.

John Dennis Hastert. Was found to be spending questionable taxpayer money ... among the heinous acts included leasing a vehicle from a long time family friend and campaign donor. Resigned without seeking to maintain office.

Thomas Dale DeLay. Resigned office prior to questionable charges being filed.

Randall Harold Cunningham. Scandal broke 06/05. Plead guilty 11/05. Resigned 12/05.

Robert William Packwood. Perhaps the lamest example of all. What Packwood was accused of is quite lame in comparison to others already discussed. The scandal broke in 1992. The R's forced him from office when they took congress in 1995, even though they knew it would cost them the senate seat. Mitch McConnell said that the R's had to decide to either "retain the Senate seat or retain our honor." They chose honor.

David Vitter. Undoubtedly a stain on the US senate. We will see if the voters have the patience for him that was displayed for the likes of Teddy.

Sir ... have you no sense of fairness at all?

Soflasnapper
08-04-2011, 03:46 PM
Yes, reading all their full names made me feel silly.

They all almost immediately resigned, WHEN THEY WERE FORCED TO. When not forced to (and by forced to, I mean threatened with expulsion from the Senate, pleading guilty to felonies, like that), they really didn't resign, immediately or thereafter.

Which your list shows is true.

Unless Ensign's year and 5 months is nearly immediately. Like the others who resigned, he was beating the sheriff out of town, scheduled to testify under oath the day after his resignation.

Gingrich's scandals caused his record level reprimands, I think 6 or 7 written reprimands, AS SPEAKER from the normally toothless Ethics Committee (prior record for any Speaker: 0). After he was fined $400,000 for exactly perjury (or obstruction, you could say either one, but swearing he'd reviewed reports and that they were accurate, when they were false and he knew it), he neither resigned nor refused to seek re-election. He only resigned AFTER being re-elected because his horrible leadership had created a mutiny among his own caucus and he would have had a hard time maintaining the Speakership against strong opposition. Not any moral issue.

Livingston was allowed to stay by his caucus, after the revelations of his sex scandals. As I say, they gave him the standing ovation to acclaim their support. He only resigned because Flynt had the pictures and was about to release them (B&D, S&M style, with the dominatrix).

You've misled with your gloss on the others as well, including your claim that Clinton was convicted as a felon. I call BS. When was the trial for that?

LWW
08-04-2011, 04:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, reading all their full names made me feel silly.

They all almost immediately resigned, WHEN THEY WERE FORCED TO. When not forced to (and by forced to, I mean threatened with expulsion from the Senate, pleading guilty to felonies, like that), they really didn't resign, immediately or thereafter.

Which your list shows is true. </div></div>

Thanks for admitting that, as my point every time this comes up is that a scandal will more likely than not get a republichicken to be forced out by the party ... while a scandal for a democrook seems to be a requirement for a good committee chair/seat.

BRAVO!

LWW
08-04-2011, 04:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gingrich's scandals caused his record level reprimands, I think 6 or 7 written reprimands, AS SPEAKER from the normally toothless Ethics Committee (prior record for any Speaker: 0). After he was fined $400,000 for exactly perjury (or obstruction, you could say either one, but swearing he'd reviewed reports and that they were accurate ...

</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'>OHHH ... MY ... GAWD ... </span></span> I can't believe that you actually posted that.

First ... the fine was $300K not $400K and he was reprimanded once, not 6 or 7. But, those are comparatively minor distortions of history.

Now, and I know you hate this, the truth.

1 - The democrooks trumped up 84 charges against Newt, including the heinous act of borrowing a box of copier paper from the speaker's office for his campaign office ... which was repaid the next day with 2 boxes.

2 - 83 of the 84 charges were dropped as baseless.

3 - The single charge was that he misused a class, carried on C-SPAN, taught through a tax exempt organization as a campaign vehicle.

4 - The accusation was that when a heckler kept asking Newt for political positions in the history class ... which he refused to answer ... and he finally said that if the heckler wanted his opinions he should call 1-800 - GOPPAC for the answer, that somehow constituted a crime.

5 - The committee never decided whether the giving of the phone number was illegal.

6 - The IRS later declared that it was not.

Now, making a moral equivalence argument that this is somehow roughly equal to Ted Kennedy's manslaughter/murder ... well that's simply moonbattery in the first degree.

Soflasnapper
08-04-2011, 06:36 PM
This account is roughly the one Sarah Palin gave in her book. I read it, and dropped 50 IQ points, which I can ill afford. Is that where you got your version?


I do appreciate your correction of my figure stated at $400,000. True, he was only fined $300,000, so you can tell right there it was a minor offense, not at all serious, as a $400,000 fine would show.

This is a hoax you've put forward. Do you know that?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> E: The Ethics Committee has Repeatedly Criticized Speaker Gingrich's Conduct

When considering what level of sanction is appropriate in this case, the Committee should bear in mind that it has repeatedly criticized Gingrich for violations of House Rules or other blameworthy conduct:

Regarding the activities of Donald Jones within the Speaker's offices (1996):

Based on this Committee's construction of House Rule 45, Mr. Jones' participation in your office as an "informal advisor" did not comply with applicable guidelines issued by this Committee governing interns or volunteers.(23)

Regarding the book contract with Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins Publishers (1995):

...the Committee strongly questions the appropriateness of what some could describe as an attempt by you to capitalize on your office. As recent events demonstrate, existing rules permit a Member to reap significant and immediate financial benefit which appears to be based primarily on his or her position. At a minimum, this creates the impression of exploiting one's office for personal gain. Such a perception is especially troubling when it pertains to the office of the Speaker of the House, a constitutional office requiring the highest standards of ethical behavior.(24)

Regarding the activities of Joseph Gaylord in the Speaker's offices (1995):

...the Committee has found that your use of Mr. Joseph Gaylord was in violation of House Rule 45, which prohibits the use of unofficial resources for official purposes.(25)

Regarding the use of the House Floor for commercial purposes (1995):

...the Committee has found a misuse of the House Floor....The House Floor should not be used for commercial purposes, and since a caller to this number was offered only the option of buying a set of tapes, the Committee finds the use of a 1-800 number to be an improper solicitation. (26)

Regarding the use of the House floor to advertise a GOPAC meeting (1995):

...the Committee has found a similar violation in your references on the House Floor in 1990 regarding a nationwide town meeting sponsored by GOPAC.(27)

Regarding the Marathon Travel mailing (1990):

The Committee concludes that you were remiss in your oversight and administration of your congressional office, which gave rise to the improper correspondence cited in the complaint. Accordingly, you are directed to immediately take steps to preclude recurrence of the type of improper activity here involved. You are further placed on notice that a future recurrence of improper use of mail and resources may result in more severe Committee action.(28)

Regarding the financial disclosure of a real estate transaction (1990):

The Committee has also determined that the acquisition of certain real estate with your daughter, as well as the underlying liability you incurred, should have been reported on your Financial Disclosure Statements for the appropriate calendar years.(29) </div></div>

Footnotes:

23. Correspondence from House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct Chairman Nancy L. Johnson and Ranking Democratic Member Jim McDermott to Speaker Newt Gingrich, March 29, 1996. See Attachment #17.

24. Correspondence from House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct Chairman Nancy L. Johnson and Ranking Democratic Member Jim McDermott to Speaker Newt Gingrich, December 6, 1995. See Attachment #18.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Correspondence from House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct Chairman Julian C. Dixon and Ranking Minority Member John T. Myers to Representative Newt Gingrich, March 8, 1990. See Attachment #19.

29. Ibid.

These were all written reprimands to Gingrich, some for ethical offenses prior to attaining the Speakership, some afterwards.

From the Congressional Accountability Project's letter re: Gingrich to the Ethics Committee of the House. (http://www.congressproject.org/ethics/jonereo2.html)

Note, Gingrich gave out the 800 number ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, not on C-SPAN covering his class at a different venue. He gave out other commercial announcements, hawking his wares, several times from the floor of the House.

Here's another piece summarizing the criticism the Ethics Committee gave Newt, quite apart from the one you say was the only reprimanded action:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Nor is this an isolated incident.

A year ago, the ethics committee noted that Gingrich had violated House rules by allowing a GOPAC official to act as his chief of staff. (Members of Congress cannot use unofficial resources for official purposes. Otherwise, you might have lobbyists running congressional offices.)

At the same time, the committee declared that Gingrich had made "an improper solicitation" by promoting on the House floor an 800 number to buy videotapes of Gingrich's own lectures.

Last fall, the committee cited Gingrich for allowing a telecommunications entrepreneur to use the Speaker's office to conduct personal business, noting the episode "demonstrates a continuing pattern of lax administration and poor judgment that has concerned this Committee in the past."

In 1990, the committee criticized Gingrich for using congressional resources to advertise a Caribbean cruise sponsored by a private company and for failing to disclose certain real estate holdings on his financial disclosure statement.

In late 1995, the committee rebuked him for creating the appearance that he was cashing in on his office when he signed a $4.5 million dollar book deal with HarperCollins, owned by Rupert Murdoch, a man with many interests before Congress. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
08-04-2011, 06:45 PM
Timeline of Gingrich ethics problems:

Sept. 7, 1994 -- Former Rep. Ben Jones files complaint against Gingrich. Jones alleged Gingrich's college course, financed with tax-deductible donations, was a violation of federal tax law.

Dec. 6, 1995 -- <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The House ethics committee clears Gingrich of three charges and reprimands him for three others.</span> The committee hires James Cole as an independent counsel to investigate whether the speaker violated tax laws in the financing of his college course.

Jan. 31, 1996 -- Reps. David Bonior (D-Mich.), Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.), George Miller (D-Calif.), Rosa De Lauro (D-Conn.), and John Lewis (D-Ga.) file complaint against Gingrich, alleging he took improper gifts and contributions from GOPAC.

Feb. 29, 1996 -- Judge dismisses lawsuit brought by the Federal Election Commission alleging GOPAC illegally aided candidates for federal office.

June 28, 1996 -- House votes along partisan lines not to widen independent counsel James Cole's investigation.

Sept. 20, 1996 -- Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), the ethics committee's ranking Democrat, calls news conference to complain the GOP is stonewalling on the Gingrich probe.
[...]
Sept. 26, 1996 -- <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The ethics committee votes to expand investigation into whether Gingrich provided false information to the committee about GOPAC's relationship with his college course.</span>

Sept. 28, 1996 -- Ethics committee votes to dismiss two charges against speaker, but refuses to sideline four charges dealing with alleged illegal campaign contributions and gifts

Nov. 10, 1996 -- GOP Rep. Steve Largent of Oklahoma says it would be a good idea for Gingrich to step aside until the ethics issues are resolved. Separately, Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.) echo that sentiment.

Dec. 18, 1996 -- <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Gingrich lawyer Jan Baran drops the speaker as a client. Gingrich later blames his false statements made to the ethics committee on Baran. Baran issues statement saying his firm "did not submit any material information to the ethics committee without Mr. Gingrich's prior review and approval."</span>

Dec. 21, 1996 -- Gingrich releases statement acknowledging finding of ethics subcommittee. "With great sadness, I have filed an answer which admits to that violation," Gingrich's statement reads.

Dec. 27, 1996 -- <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Atlanta Constitution reports that Gingrich had been advised by attorneys in 1990 not to use tax exempt funds to finance his college course.
</span>

[...]
Jan. 6, 1997 -- House Banking Committee chairman Jim Leach (R-Ohio) becomes the second Republican to break ranks and oppose Gingrich's re-election. Later, Reps. Tom Campbell (R-Calif.), Mark Neumann (R-Wis.) and Linda Smith (R-Wash.) also say they won't support the speaker. Gingrich returns from Marietta, Ga., and argues his case during a three-hour, closed-door address to the House GOP caucus. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicates two-thirds of Americans believe Gingrich is unfit to remain speaker, </span>while by 48-41 percent they believe he should stay in Congress.

Jan. 7, 1997 -- Gingrich re-elected for a second term as House speaker. He receives 216 votes to House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt's 205, with four votes going to other people. Six members vote "present" and four members, including Gingrich, do not vote.

Jan. 8, 1997 -- The House ethics committee begins formal deliberations into what Gingrich's punishment should be.

Jan. 9, 1997 -- House ethics committee Democrats hold a news conference demanding that the scheduled panel vote on Gingrich's punishment be delayed two weeks to give special counsel Jim Cole more time to work on his report. Joined by her GOP colleagues, committee chairwoman Nancy Johnson calls her own press conference to change the schedule, calling off five days of scheduled public hearings that were to begin Jan. 13. Johnson instructs the special counsel to complete his report by Jan. 16, leaving the schedule for hearings in doubt.

Jan. 10, 1997 -- The New York Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution report on an intercepted cell phone conversation indicating Gingrich may have violated his Dec. 21 agreement with the panel not to orchestrate a GOP counterattack against the charges. In a telephone conversation taped that day, and subsequently obtained by the two papers, the speaker is heard reacting favorably to strategy concocted by GOP operative Ed Gillespie.

Jan. 14, 1997 -- Under fire for accepting the tape of Gingrich's phone call, the ethics committee's ranking Democrat, Jim McDermott (Wash.) recuses himself from further consideration of the Gingrich matter, on condition that one Republican also step aside from the ethics committee to maintain the panel's partisan balance. Unrepentant, McDermott blasts ethics chair Nancy Johnson (R-Conn) and committee Republicans, who he says "stonewalled or otherwise "obstructed sensible efforts to get at the whole truth."

Jan. 15, 1997 -- Republican ethics committee member David Hobson (Ohio) agrees to step aside from the Gingrich case. As partisan sniping escalates, Rep. Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.) demands that Democrats "ferret out" whether McDermott was responsible for leaking the contents of the tape to news sources, and suggests the episode could justify Republicans voting for a lighter punishment for Gingrich.

Jan. 17, 1997 -- Cole and lawyers for Gingrich agree that the speaker's punishment should be a reprimand plus a $300,000 penalty to reimburse the ethics committee for time wasted due to his inconsistent statements. The panel holds a public hearing into Gingrich's violations, then votes 7-1 in favor of the judgment.

Jan. 21, 1997 -- The House votes 395-28 in favor of ethics committee's recommended punishment for Gingrich -- a reprimand plus a $300,000 penalty, which allows him to remain as House speaker.

Jan. 22, 1997 -- <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Los Angeles Times, citing House ethics committee documents, reports that GOPAC urged donors to contribute "dues" to the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation, which were forwarded to GOPAC, which in turn contributed them to Republican political candidates.</span> Gingrich has not responded to the allegation.

Jan. 25, 1997 -- Gingrich returns to Marietta, Ga., and tells a mostly supportive crowd that his misstatements to the ethics committee were his lawyer's fault. He asserts that "You can on the left do anything you want and nobody seems to notice," but as a conservative, he was "politically incorrect."

April 22, 1997 -- Ending months of speculation, Gingrich announces he will pay the $300,000 penalty using a loan from former GOP presidential candidate and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole.

More, cites here. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/gingrich/index3.html)

-----------

When even GOP House members were suggesting Gingrich step down as Speaker, even if only temporarily, and that number of the American people thought him 'unfit' for being Speaker, a high Constitutional office, your gloss that he was unfairly charged or treated is pablum for the history-challenged (or the young people). You are not young, I have learned, so it's a puzzle.

You weren't paying attention to these details then?

Gingrich was told not to use non-profit monies by lawyers, and then, later, claimed he'd never asked that question. While two experts differed on whether it was legitimate before the committee, they both agreed it was incumbent upon him to ask legal counsel. Gingrich claimed he didn't.

The false information he put over to the committee claimed there was no connection of GOPAC whatsoever to his college course. It was totally connected.

When the committee noticed this, they asked him again to clarify, change, or amend his statement, or re-endorse it.

He did so again, denying all connection, falsely. Then blamed his lawyer for his missing this statement on a one- or two-page letter.

Lying to Congress is a crime carrying the same penalties as perjury does.

Soflasnapper
08-04-2011, 07:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, reading all their full names made me feel silly.

They all almost immediately resigned, WHEN THEY WERE FORCED TO. When not forced to (and by forced to, I mean threatened with expulsion from the Senate, pleading guilty to felonies, like that), they really didn't resign, immediately or thereafter.

Which your list shows is true. </div></div>

Thanks for admitting that, as my point every time this comes up is that a scandal will more likely than not get a republichicken to be forced out by the party ... while a scandal for a democrook seems to be a requirement for a good committee chair/seat.

BRAVO! </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [Duke] Cunningham announced that he would resign from the House at a press conference just after entering his plea. He submitted his official resignation letter to the Clerk of the House and to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on December 6, 2005.[</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After being indicted on September 28, 2005, DeLay stepped down from his position as Majority Leader. He was the first congressional leader ever to be indicted.[15] Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri took over as acting leader.[16] On January 7, 2006,, DeLay announced that he would not seek to regain his position as Majority Leader.

On April 5, 2006, he announced that he would be stepping down from his seat in Congress on June 9, 2006. </div></div>

Now that's odd, as you claimed he resigned his office before questionable charges were filed. It was only AFTER he was INDICTED, and he resigned his leadership office, not his seat.

Odd, again, is that not one of these guys was forced out, apparently, OR immediately resigned as soon as the scandal broke.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Everything you claimed is false.</span>

Packwood? The Republican takeover had nothing to do with pushing him out. The Ethics Committees have equal membership from both parties. The Republicans were DEFENDING him, up until he was shown to have been tampering with the evidence. At least, that was what Mitch McConnell said was his biggest transgression.

Gayle in MD
08-04-2011, 11:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, reading all their full names made me feel silly.

They all almost immediately resigned, WHEN THEY WERE FORCED TO. When not forced to (and by forced to, I mean threatened with expulsion from the Senate, pleading guilty to felonies, like that), they really didn't resign, immediately or thereafter.

Which your list shows is true.

Unless Ensign's year and 5 months is nearly immediately. Like the others who resigned, he was beating the sheriff out of town, scheduled to testify under oath the day after his resignation.

Gingrich's scandals caused his record level reprimands, I think 6 or 7 written reprimands, AS SPEAKER from the normally toothless Ethics Committee (prior record for any Speaker: 0). After he was fined $400,000 for exactly perjury (or obstruction, you could say either one, but swearing he'd reviewed reports and that they were accurate, when they were false and he knew it), he neither resigned nor refused to seek re-election. He only resigned AFTER being re-elected because his horrible leadership had created a mutiny among his own caucus and he would have had a hard time maintaining the Speakership against strong opposition. Not any moral issue.

Livingston was allowed to stay by his caucus, after the revelations of his sex scandals. As I say, they gave him the standing ovation to acclaim their support. He only resigned because Flynt had the pictures and was about to release them (B&D, S&M style, with the dominatrix).

You've misled with your gloss on the others as well, including your claim that Clinton was convicted as a felon. I call BS. When was the trial for that?

</div></div>

And, they gave Vitter, their favorite Repiglican "JOHN" whose frequenting of prostitutes, along with his kinky, diaper loving pervertions, a standing ovation, for his behavior!

And He's STILL THERE!

As is Colburn, still there, who was involved in negotiations between his friend Ensign, and Ensign's mistress and he husband's pay offs by ensign's Da Da, not to mention his illegal giveaways to her husband's lobbying firm.

If it's a Repiglilcan it's OK.

Even if it's a toe Tapping, bathroim freak! Craign didn't resign, either.

LWW
08-05-2011, 03:54 AM
Actually I got it from paying attention when the whole deal went down. Being a history guy, I also watched his class several times ... and every show there would be leftist morons trying to do the same thing.

I didn't bring up the book deal because I didn't think there were any leftists that would be shameless enough to bring that up after theye celebrated Hillary doing the same thing ... for money many multiples higher.

But, your capacity for hyper-partisan hypocrisy truly seems to know no bounds.

Qtec
08-05-2011, 04:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and every show there would be <u>leftist morons</u> trying to do the same thing. </div></div>


...and pink elephants doing lap dances.


LOL

Q... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
08-05-2011, 04:30 AM
I see you've been to the Amsterdam coffee shops again.

Soflasnapper
08-05-2011, 09:17 AM
Being a history guy

...

you certainly missed a lot of it at the time, failing to realize Newt had been slapped down, reprimanded in writing a number of times, prior to his more famous incident.

You certainly misremembered where and when Gingrich had given out the 800 number, stating it was not on the floor of the House, but during a C-SPAN broadcast of his course. (Where did you make that up from?) Then, claiming the question was whether that was legal or not?!?!

I think the letter from the Ethics Committee is clear on that matter, and quite correct, considering Nancy Johnson's name on the letter (the lead Republican on the Ethics Committee, its Chairperson, and a protege of Gingrich himself).

Gayle in MD
08-05-2011, 09:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Being a history guy

...

you certainly missed a lot of it at the time, failing to realize Newt had been slapped down, reprimanded in writing a number of times, prior to his more famous incident. </div></div>

He's a history terrorist!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
08-05-2011, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the letter from the Ethics Committee is clear on that matter, and quite correct, considering Nancy Johnson's name on the letter (the lead Republican on the Ethics Committee, its Chairperson, and a protege of Gingrich himself). </div></div>

Post it then so we can read it.

ugotda7
08-05-2011, 06:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, reading all their full names made me feel silly.

They all almost immediately resigned, WHEN THEY WERE FORCED TO. When not forced to (and by forced to, I mean threatened with expulsion from the Senate, pleading guilty to felonies, like that), they really didn't resign, immediately or thereafter.

Which your list shows is true.

Unless Ensign's year and 5 months is nearly immediately. Like the others who resigned, he was beating the sheriff out of town, scheduled to testify under oath the day after his resignation.

Gingrich's scandals caused his record level reprimands, I think 6 or 7 written reprimands, AS SPEAKER from the normally toothless Ethics Committee (prior record for any Speaker: 0). After he was fined $400,000 for exactly perjury (or obstruction, you could say either one, but swearing he'd reviewed reports and that they were accurate, when they were false and he knew it), he neither resigned nor refused to seek re-election. He only resigned AFTER being re-elected because his horrible leadership had created a mutiny among his own caucus and he would have had a hard time maintaining the Speakership against strong opposition. Not any moral issue.

Livingston was allowed to stay by his caucus, after the revelations of his sex scandals. As I say, they gave him the standing ovation to acclaim their support. He only resigned because Flynt had the pictures and was about to release them (B&D, S&M style, with the dominatrix).

You've misled with your gloss on the others as well, including your claim that Clinton was convicted as a felon. I call BS. When was the trial for that?

</div></div>

And, they gave Vitter, their favorite Repiglican "JOHN" whose frequenting of prostitutes, along with his kinky, diaper loving pervertions, a standing ovation, for his behavior!

And He's STILL THERE!

As is Colburn, still there, who was involved in negotiations between his friend Ensign, and Ensign's mistress and he husband's pay offs by ensign's Da Da, not to mention his illegal giveaways to her husband's lobbying firm.

If it's a Repiglilcan it's OK.

Even if it's a toe Tapping, bathroim freak! Craign didn't resign, either. </div></div>

http://www.hamovhotov.com/fun/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/i-see-dumb-people-everywhere.jpg