Newt Revises History & Breaks The Law

Newt Gingrich may have a lot of the teabaggers fooled (at least for now), but most progressives know that this ethical black hole will say or do anything to advance his own agenda -- and it doesn't matter if what he says is an outright lie or what he does is illegal. The only thing that matters to Newt is getting what he wants, and what he wants right now is the Republican presidential nomination.

A lot of voters may not be aware of Newt's loose ethics during his tenure as House Speaker, or they only have a fuzzy memory about that. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) hinted about exposing those violations to the general public the other day, saying she might reveal them at the "right time". But she knows that time is not yet here. It would be much more effective after Newt wins the Republican nomination, and she doesn't want to do anything that might prevent that from happening (because Newt is the Democrat's dream opponent).

I think Pelosi's veiled threat to expose the truth about Newt must have scared him, because he is now trying to get out-front on the issue by doing a little revision of history. In an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, Gingrich said the ethics charges were the result of a "very partisan political committee and the way I was dealt with related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than to ethics." This is a fairly intelligent ploy for Gingrich to try, since he knows the teabaggers think they are victims of the Democrats and would probably be eager to believe their current champion was also a victim of those same evil Democrats.

The only problem with what he said is that it's an outrageous lie. Consider the following facts:
* That ethics committee that found him guilty of violating House ethics was equally divided with four Democrats and four Republicans.
* The committee voted 7-1 to forward a violation to the full House -- meaning 3 out of the four committee Republicans voted against Newt.
* The full House of Representatives found Newt guilty of at least one ethics violation on a 395-28 vote (meaning 196 Republicans voted against Newt).
* Newt PLED GUILTY to a single ethics violation in exchange for the House dropping 84 other ethics violations. And he agreed to receive a reprimand and pay a $300,000 fine.


Does that sound like a partisan witch hunt? Not even close. A 395-28 vote in the House of Representatives is the very definition of bipartisanship. But then bipartisanship is not a concept that Newt has mastered. He was the architect of the partisan climate that still grips the U.S. Congress.

But that ridiculous revision of history (lie) pales in comparison to another action he took recently. The Washington Times has reported that Newt promised to make former U.N. Ambassador (and noted war-hawk) John Bolton his Secretary of State if he is elected president. That may not sound so bad to some (especially right-wingers), but it happens to be a violation of federal law. Here is what U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 29, Section 599 says:

"Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Now some right-wing pundits are trying to cover Gingrich's illegal blunder by saying the support it is talking about is Bolton's support, and it cannot be proven he was trying to get Bolton's support when he made the statement. But I have read the paragraph several times and that is just not what it says. It only says it must be done with the intent of procuring support -- it does not specify who's support he would be trying to procure. And it is obvious that he was trying to secure the support of the war-loving teabagger base of the Republican Party (and probably Bolton too).

This is a pretty clear violation of federal law. But I doubt Gingrich will ever be charged with it, let alone see the inside of a courtroom. The rich and powerful are held to a different standard than the rest of us. However, it does show that Newt Gingrich is still completely devoid of any ethics.