E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NEW YORK -- Newt Gingrich shot back at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today, after Pelosi threatened to reveal details of the ethics investigation into the former House Speaker almost 13 years ago.
“I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift,” Gingrich said during a press conference at Manhattan’s Union League Club Monday afternoon.
“If she’s saying that she’s going to use material that she developed while she was on the ethics committee,” Gingrich added, “that is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House, and I would hope that members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it.”
The remark brought a quick response over Twitter from Nancy Pelosi’s staff.
“[Pelosi] was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record,” wrote her spokesman, Drew Hammill.
The back-and-forth began earlier today when the left-leaning website Talking Points Memo published an interview with Pelosi, in which she said, “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich.”
The blog post was headlined, “Democrats Gleeful At Prospect of Running Against Gingrich.”
“I know a lot about him,” Pelosi told TPM. “I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”
The ethics investigation resulted in sanctions against Gingrich, and a fine.
Gingrich resigned as Speaker of the House in 1999. Pelosi later served as House Speaker, from 2007 until January, 2011.
The two appeared in a 2008 video encouraging action on global warming –- a move that has invited attacks from Gingrich’s opponents in the GOP field.
“We don’t always see eye-to-eye, do we Newt?” Pelosi said in the video.
“No,” Gingrich replied.
Leave a Comment:
I remember when she was asked if Obama care was in accordance with the Constitution and she laughed and said, "Are you kidding me?" Yes, consider the source and maybe the whole comment was just to make people wonder. Over nothing. She is the one who needs to be investigated. She doesn't have one ethical bone in her skinny body!!
LindaG - You're another hater that doesn't know anything about someone but just regurgitates what she hears from others. Your comments offer nothing of substance to any debate.
As opposed to yours, Laurie? Where is the substance in your post? Pelosi did infact make that precise statement when asked if PPACA was Constitutional. I fail to see your point!
That is the weakest defense I have ever seen. Newt says that his closet is full of skeletons but we are not to look into it.
The Republican party is on a downward spiral unlike any I've ever seen. They have completely given up on personal integrity as they can find none in their party!
To BrianB - Tsk, Tsk.....Being so ill informed must take a toll at some level or perhaps it's just "head-in-the-sand" syndrome.......Soooooo, you think President Obama ruined this country??? Hah!! I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time. Too bad you aren't embarrassed at such an asinine statement. Let's not forget about the 20 some odd years that preceded this president; the Reagan tax cuts twice, repeal of Glass-Steegle, the Bush Tax cuts twice, two unfunded wars, corporate and individual tax loopholes and offshore havens that you could run a truck through that effectively helped some corporations and individuals pay no taxes (that's zero) at all, shall I go on???? Now, why don't you bone up on your American History before you go blaming the end of the world on one man. You'd get more respect if you spoke from a position of knowledge instead of ideology then you might actually be able to make a positive contribution.
The Gingrich Ethics Probe
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/ethics.htm
the man paid a $300k ethics violation fine.He was also removed as speaker not by democrats but his fellow republicans. This is not conjecture or supposition, or democratic talking points. Perhaps the man has moved on and is now sorry for his past actions and his religious conversion is true. But on policy issues Newt is all about dividing us as a people(poor people dont work), sharia law is prevalent and a menace to the "american way" and so many other newtism that my own personal belief is the man is still a ego maniac and will say or do anything for his own benefit. It's all about newt.....
He wasn't "booted out" by anyone. He resigned. Probably just ahead of being booted, but he still resigned he wasn't booted! Not much difference from our point of view, but hugh from the legal point of view!
Bama needs to get off the campaign trail and get his ass to helping the thousands of families living on the street after losing their jobs. People are suffering and the employment number is grossly incorrect. The government is not including the people that have run out of unemployment and fallen off the count.
Pelosi cannot recall where she last pooped much less the ethics scandal about Newtie!
Come on Miss Nina, that is such a small number only 315,000 last month... aH ....ER ...well mabey that is about 4 time the number of jobs created last month! Forget that the only thing that counts is that unemployment is only at 8.6%....duh ...isn't it?
Something to hide, Newt?
Gees, you Republicans sure can pick 'em. Newt will go down in flames and rightfully so.
The height of hypocrisy is Pelosi saying "she's got the goods" on some one else when her hand is always in the cookie jar.
"Pelosi had a conflict of interest because she and her investor husband, Paul Pelosi, bought stock in Visa, the credit card company based in San Francisco, in March 2008 while a bill that would limit the fees credit card companies could charge companies was pending in the House."
"The Pelosis bought Visa stock three times: 5,000 shares at $44 each in an initial public offering March 18, 2008; 10,000 shares after the IPO at $64 on March 25, and 5,000 shares at $86 on June 4."
"The credit card fees bill, by then-House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., passed his committee on Oct. 3, 2008, but did not reach the full House. Pelosi was speaker at the time and controlled which legislation came to the floor."
Those two are matched up intellectually and ethically. For either one to cast stones is funny. Newt is the Republican Party's "intellectual",which, I know, sounds like a misnomer. If Republicans could back reasonable candidate, they would have a slight chance next year. If they ran Huntsman AND backed him with the votes, he could win. He can at least claim sanity.
Comic! BTW just what office is Pelosi running for?
I know Newt says he's running for POTUS but let's look at his record shall we?:
On global warming: He supported government sponsoring of alternative energy programs. He supported cap-and-trade. He supported ethanol subsidies.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When asked about his lobbying efforts on their behalf, he lied. When proof of payment from them to him was made public, he claimed to be a paid ' historian' Sure Newt
On government-run medicine, Gingrich was an early champion of the individual mandate.
Gingrich was also onboard with the disasterous Medicare Part D.
He described Paul Ryan’s proposal to convert Medicare into a premium support plan as " Right-wing social Engineering"
I won't even bother citing the fact he left his speakership in disgrace, carried on two adulteress affairs and was ordered to pay over $300k in penalties.
Nice choice GOTP!
1
LMAO, tangle my A&&, pelosi spewed some cr*p from that camel toe on her face and Newt told her to shove it and she wimpered off with her head up her A&&!
Thanks for showcasing, in a single sentence, every disgustingly hateful and misogynistic thing that's wrong with the GOP and alienating 160 Million American women, some of them republicans, in the process.
Now kindly go and wash your filthy little fingers.
I don't profess to speak for the GOP, in case you didn't pick up on it, I think pelosi is disgusting, oh, and obama too.
Dear Nancy Pelosi Please answer on how the granting of retro active immunity from prosecution given to California Judges restores Due Process under senate bill SBX211???? There are a few LAWS that need to be discussed I will list them in order and please respond.
1. MISPRISION OF FELONY. Knows of a federal crime that the person has witnessed or that has come to the person's attention, or failed to prevent. Fails to report it to a federal judge or other federal official (who is not thems4elves involved in the crime).
2. REPEATED MISPRISION OF FELONYCRIMES BY AMERICA'S "LEADERS"
Members of Congress that had been repeatedly informed by present and former government agents and others of continuing federal crimes. Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice, and other government departments.Media people and media corporations. Lawyers who compounded the obstruction of justice with sham legal attacks paralleling the obstruction of justice tactics by federal judges and Department of Justice employees.
3. Now lets get back to Senate Bill SBX211 and please answer all the constitutional challenges.
SBX211 does not restore due processSBX211 violates Article 1 section 9
SBX211 violates the 14th amendment (no equal protections)
SBX211 violate checks and balances between legislative and Judicial powers.
Judges do not disclose the county payments at the onset of any trial where the county is either a party to the case or has a financial interest. (Judges violate Judicial codes of ethics)
Judges refuse to recuse themselves when requested under CCP170Judges find themselves unbiased and then file an order striking statement.
Loss of Constitutional rights to honest services.
SECTION FROM SBX211 SEC. 5.
This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of this bill on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law.
4. SBX211 is evidence of conspiracy of the California legislative branch of government to cover up the multiple felony's committed by the Judicial branch of government. By an act of Legislation the California's judicial branch Government has admitted to be corrupt.
5. A Senate bill can only address one issue.
SBX211 SEC. 7. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.