0 votes

No Salamanders for President,ie: Newts


The Bloomberg Businessweek article about Newt Gingrich's $1.6 million Freddie Mac payday notes that he first interacted with the company in 1999, when his primary contact was Robert Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac's chief lobbyist, and that "he was paid a self-renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000."

That gig lasted until 2002.

Interestingly, that was a time of scandal at Freddie Mac.

Let's go to the Associated Press archives:
Freddie Mac was accused of illegally using corporate resources between 2000 and 2003 for 85 fundraisers that collected about $1.7 million for federal candidates. Much of the fundraising benefited members of the House Financial Services Committee, a panel whose decisions can affect Freddie Mac. The fundraisers were organized by then-Freddie Mac lobbyists Robert Mitchell Delk and Clark Camper, who described them to the corporation's board of directors as "political risk management," the FEC [Federal Election Commission] said.

... Freddie Mac had held more than 40 fundraisers for House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley, R-Ohio. The FEC also found Freddie Mac officials used staff and resources to raise money from company employees to give to candidates, and that in 2002 the corporation itself gave $150,000 to the Republican Governors Association. The RGA ultimately returned the money.
Due to that illegal contribution and those fundraisers, Freddie Mac ultimately paid a $3.8 million fine, the biggest to date in Federal Election Commission history. It could be coincidence that, just as a powerful former speaker of the House was hired by the organization's chief lobbyist as a highly paid consultant, it began to funnel large amounts of money to his erstwhile Republican colleagues.

Was it?

Whether or not Gingrich bore partial responsibility for the illegal strategy is it credible that he was unaware that the organization paying him so handsomely was also holding dozens of fundraisers and funneling big money to his recent colleagues? As Gingrich said Wednesday, in the course of defending himself, "It reminds people that I know a great deal about Washington. We just tried four years of amateur ignorance and it didn't work very well. So, having someone who actually knows Washington might be a really good thing." Did Gingrich know Washington well enough to see that his main contact at Freddie Mac was pursuing an illegal strategy? Food for thought.


Newt Gingrich tries to rewrite history of his ethics scandal (Fact Checker biography)
Posted by Josh Hicks at 06:02 AM ET, 12/16/2011

(Jim Young, Reuters)
“It tells you how capriciously political [the House ethics] committee was that she was on it. It tells you how tainted the outcome was that she was on it.”
— Newt Gingrich, Dec. 5, 2011, talking to reporters about suggestions from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that she could reveal secret information from a 1990s House ethics investigation of the current GOP front-runner.
“I think what it does is it reminds people who probably didn't know this that she was on the ethics committee, that it was a very partisan political committee, and that the way I was dealt with related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than the ethics.”
— Gingrich, Dec. 6, 2011, answering questions about Pelosi and the ethics investigation during interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News.
“The attrition effect on your members of that many ads and that many charges just gradually wore down people, and I gradually lost the ability to lead, because I was so battered by the process.”
— Gingrich, Dec. 7, 2011, during a meeting with the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Gingrich made these comments after Pelosi hinted that she could reveal damaging information about him “when the time’s right,” thanks to her involvement with a 1990 ethics investigation of the now-surging GOP candidate — a case that led to the first congressional reprimand of a House speaker.
We don’t question that Democrats relished the chance to nail Gingrich for ethics violations, especially after he gave the same treatment to former Democratic House speaker Jim Wright in 1988. But justice can still run its course fairly and impartially when enemies have blown the whistle, even if they enjoy watching you squirm.
We examined the congressional ethics committee that reprimanded Gingrich to find out more about its makeup. Was the panel truly as partisan as the Republican front-runner suggests, or has this prolific alternative-history writer crafted yet another fiction?
The congressional ethics panel that investigated Gingrich — when the GOP controlled the House — consisted of four Democrats and four Republicans, a perfectly bipartisan group that voted 7-1 to reprimand the then-speaker. Furthermore, the House voted 395 to 28 to support the committee’s decision, with backing from 196 Republicans.
No question about it, lawmakers didn’t vote along party lines in this matter. However, Democrats did raise the issue first in 1994. The initial complaint came from former Democratic congressman Ben Jones, who had challenged Gingrich for his House seat that same year.

Ron Paul on Isreal.

I don’t recommend that you watch this video, it is Graphic in so far as war is graphic.
It is what we recently did in Libya with out ever setting foot on there soil, we sent drones with 3000 lb payloads of bombs, and for every bomb dropped, 50 civilian men women and children were added to the casualties. We never went to congress to declare war.
We just sent bombers. DONOT WATCH THIS VIDEO WITH WOMEN OR CHILDREN NEAR BY. I couldn’t finish watching it. This is the unnecessary war like behavior Ron Paul is talking about. We have not declared war on any country since world war II.
The Constitution?

This speech that you sent to me is an example of Newts hypocrisy, He is a an eloquent speaker no doubt, but while admire his passion his record speaks for itself.
He profited from that exact practice of making loans to people who can’t afford them, his profit was not $35,000 as you stated it was $30,000 a month, for years as I have showed you.

I won’t vote for anyone who is not in favor of repealing Obama-care %100.
I won’t vote for anyone who shared any views with Pelosi as she flew around on our tax dollars in a private jet.
I won’t vote for anyone who supports the Patriot act, very inaptly named.
I won’t vote for anyone who supports the NDAA, Newt definitely supports this law, and stated so in the debate.
Is Ron Paul the perfect candidate? No absolutely not. But he is the most accurate candidate, his voting record is %100 consistent with the constitution, he was seen as a Washington outsider until he was reelected repeatedly. He was called a fringe candidate but cause he still stands on the edge of the fabric of hope, and faith that formed this country, our Constitution. For almost one hundred years the Constitution has been slowly unraveled, more rapidly after we joined the U.N. Only three out of one hundred possible votes went against the NDAA. Goldman Sachs is the no.1 contributor on both sides of the fence, how does that make sense? I will tell you. The ends justify the means and they are all working to the same end…All of them except Ron Paul. Again he is not perfect, but his voting record, his stance, his knowledge of the economic structure, his integrity, are all unmatched. I don’t see a more viable candidate to stand and take the Oath of Office of the President of the United States, we know he will defend the Constitution because he already does, Name one other candidate that can say that.