What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
The Romney campaign keeps hitting Newt Gingrich over the 1990s ethics case that ended with the former Speaker receiving a reprimand and paying a $300,000 penalty. Voters in Iowa and other states keep hearing that Gingrich "had to resign in disgrace." Byron York, who is a fantastic reporter, revisits the incident and the results are very surprising:
Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it's worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich's former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich's ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.
He goes through the specifics of the case, including the role Dukes of Hazzard actor Ben "Cooter" Jones played in the controversy. He briefly explains exactly how things developed and the short read is well worth it. The IRS checked out each of the videotaped lessons and the evaluations written by the college students who took the course. He was completely exonerated.
When he'd gone through the drama, the Washington Post and New York Times ran extensive coverage. On one day alone, the New York Times ran 11 stories on the Gingrich matter, four on the front page. The broadcast news likewise led with the story.
The story was much different when Gingrich was exonerated. The Washington Post ran a brief story on page five. The Times ran an equally brief story on page 23. And the evening newscasts of CBS, NBC, and ABC -- which together had devoted hours of coverage to the question of Gingrich's ethics -- did not report the story at all. Not a word.
An exception is this CNN report which gives some of the details:
- Comment (48)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
What I have found surprising amongst the "conservative" punditocracy is their acceptance of the leftist version of history when they want to criticize a candidate. (e..g. Newt had to resign because of the government shutdowns, when his biggest legislative accomplishments were after them.)
Nov '10
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
Funny, isn't it? And now we have a proven tax cheat, Timothy Geithner, in charge of the Treasury. Little bit of a double standard, perhaps?
Aug '11
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
So, when the Romney campaign disgracefully sends Newt an Anniversary Cake, demanding release of the ethics investigation, shouldn't Newt say something like "I can understand why you might not be aware that I was exonerated of all charges. The News Media barely reported on it. But I would also expect someone who is running for President to be knowledgeable about these things so that he's not embarrassed by his own ignorance."
Edited on January 25, 2012 at 3:46pmMay '11
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
There was nothing in the report about the so-called "misleading statements." I looked into it at the time, and I was astounded to find that the "misleading statements" were simply arguments made in a brief submitted by Gingrich's lawyer, in support of the position that Gingrich had done nothing wrong. That is what a lawyer is SUPPOSED to do. As a lawyer myself, I do it every day.
The House Ethics Committee (like the idiot "fact checkers" at the NY Times and elsewhere), was apparently incapable of understanding the difference between (1) asserting a fact, and (2) presenting an argument in support of a particular conclusion. If the fact you assert is untrue, that is a misrepresentation. But if you make an argument and someone does not agree with your conclusion, that is NOT a misrepresentation. That is simply free speech and dialogue.
Dec '10
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
The real question is how does this information get wide enough dissemination so the electorate can make their choice based on facts rather than fiction? About half the arguments against Newt are based on the misleading history of the ethics violation.
Jun '10
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
So Newt was done in by a carefully contrived witch-hunt based on false accusations and character assassination. This is why good people don't run for office. We expect strong moral character from our elected officials, but we continue to elect bottom feeders to office. That goes for both sides of the aisle. As long as the electorate fails to evaluate character as a primary qualification for office, we're going to get more of the same. This might well be democracy's fatal flaw.
Sep '10
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
Kinda funny juxtaposition here at Ricochet:
What Really Happened at the Beginning of Time? posted by Claire
and
What Really Happened with the Gingrich Ethics Case?
You gals ask pretty tough questions....
Edited on January 25, 2012 at 4:08pmAug '11
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
And the other half are based on the myth about the bedside divorce.
Sep '10
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
DrewInWisconsin
And the other half are based on the myth about the bedside divorce. · 3 minutes ago
Just lie back and think of Charlie Crist.
Aug '10
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
When people ask why Newt is surging now, after so many years out of the limelight and after being written off as a disgrace, a large part of the answer is surely that the Internet now allows people to investigate the real facts behind opposition attacks.
Sep '10
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
(This comment accidentally dropped down elevator shaft).
Edited on January 25, 2012 at 4:18pmApr '11
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
There are two chief defenses for the impeachment of Clinton. Firstly, "character counts". The claim that the President's infidelity rendered him unsuitable for office is clearly one that Newt advocates cannot use.
The second is "it's the perjury, not the sex". The perjury, though, was not unambiguous. The definition of "sexual relations" that he was responding to required contact with Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks". Oral sex is not, by that definition, sex, and it was to that definition that he was responding. Since the definition, when applied to objects, only applied to the first two anatomic references, the "cigar incident" was not caught, either. Furthermore, perjury requires a high degree of intent; a response mistaken about whether the definition applied would not be enough. The last issue that gets raised here, the present tense denial of the relationship with Lewinsky, was very clearly protected by the Bronston standard.
Newt's conduct seems less defensible in terms of compliance than Clinton's. Multiple skilled investigators thought he was guilty, as did almost every conservative Republican in the House. The IRS disagreed. Newt was taken down by the ridiculous standards he helped to create.
Apr '11
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
I'm very glad that since Newt stepped down, we've had relatively little of the high ethics drama within the House that marked his ascent to power and his fall. If Boener, for instance, were to be accused of the same thing, I do not imagine that it would result in much scandal, let alone the melodrama that dominated '97-'98. The Democrats got excited about the "climate of corruption" under Bush, but the congressional actions that took place to condemn corruption were relatively unambiguous and non-partisan. It was a terrible shame about Scooter, but the Plame affair was probably the worst that things have gotten since Newt resigned, and it's just not so big a deal.
Sep '10
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
I just finished reading Byron York's piece. It was fantastic. And to to have a former alcoholic who played the dumbest (think about that one for a moment) cast member of the Dukes of Hazzard conspire with David Bonior in a sort of Harlem Globetrotters full court press on Gingrich is a high comedy that I wish I would have thought of writing first. The IRS investigation was excruciatingly detailed and he convinced them. Not only that -- as an added bonus -- one of the reasons he was exonnerated was because he was very fair and deferential to Democrats whom he featured in his course.
In the course, the angry badger was an astute hedgehog.
Sep '10
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
James Of England: There are two chief defenses for the impeachment of Clinton. Firstly, "character counts". The claim that the President's infidelity rendered him unsuitable for office is clearly one that Newt advocates cannot use.
The second is "it's the perjury, not the sex". The perjury, though, was not unambiguous. The definition of "sexual relations" that he was responding to required contact with Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks". Oral sex is not, by that definition, sex, and it was to that definition that he was responding. Since the definition, when applied to objects, only applied to the first two anatomic references, the "cigar incident" was not caught, either. Furthermore, perjury requires a high degree of intent; a response mistaken about whether the definition applied would not be enough. The last issue that gets raised here, the present tense denial of the relationship with Lewinsky, was very clearly protected by the Bronston standard.
Newt's conduct seems less defensible in terms of compliance than Clinton's.
Wow. Proof that intellectualism can be downright evil. I bet you could prove you don't exist.
Sep '10
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
Hey James of England. What is the meaning of "is"? I need to know before I can understand what you are trying to say.
Aug '11
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
The media will turn on Mitt ASAP. If he's the candidate, he will get a fine taste of the character onslaught that Newt endured.
Apr '11
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
Franco
Hey James of England. What is the meaning of "is"? I need to know before I can understand what you are trying to say. ·
Do you think that "is" is a part tense statement? I've always been amazed by the response to that Clinton statement. He was making a joke about how obvious it is that he was speaking in present tense, and people make out he was using some obscure technical claim.
My sense is that it was because people were outraged by the person, not listening to the specifics of that charge. Again, notice that almost every conservative Republican found Newt guilty. People only convict without giving respect to the defense when they're convinced that the defendant is acting like a simply terrible human being and they lose credibility.
When your closest ideological allies become that fed up with your grandstanding and false passions, it's because you've really gone overboard. Compare, for instance, the passionate assault on John King, in which Newt called King "despicable" in an intensely felt speech, shortly before congratulating him on his moderation of the debate and being very friendly to him in the spin room.
Apr '11
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
The media have been focused on Mitt for months. There's the discovery that Bain headquartered its some of its funds in Cayman, just like every other firm that wants to sell its funds to clients in multiple jurisdictions. There's the interviews with his cousins in Mexico, with discussions of polygamy. There's the Newsweek and other explorations of the LDS. There's the Bain stuff.
There's not a lot of character attacks because Mitt has a sound character. He really has been faithful to his family, straightforward with those he worked with, and untroubled by legal or other personal scandals.
Apr '11
Re: What Really Happened With The Gingrich Ethics Case?
This.
And this is why yes, we do need to defeat the media!