• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says

AdamT said:
Do you really not understand the distinction? Clinton was a scumbag but he wasn't a hypocrite. Gingrich is a scumbag AND a hypocrite. And that makes all the difference.
Click to expand...

Clinton lied to the American people and to a Grand Jury as well. No hypocrisy there?
 
Grant said:
No, in fact you made it clear when you said "Values". Not moral values. Are you now making the claim that Obama is talking tax values?

Please explain.
Click to expand...

Really? You're actually saying that?
 
Grant said:
Acquitted?

He was impeached.
Click to expand...

He was found not guilty. Impeachment was the trial. The vote of the Senate was the verdict.
 
misterman said:
And then acquitted.

You do know what impeach means and how it works, right?
Click to expand...

Obviously not. Impeachment is the accusation and the process, not the verdict. The verdict was not guilty.

Impeachment
 
Last edited:
Wiggen said:
He was found not guilty. Impeachment was the trial. The vote of the Senate was the verdict.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was impeached by the House.

The Senate voted not to impeach.

Would that be correct?
 
Wiggen said:
The verdict was not guilty.
Click to expand...

So Clinton was found not guilty, versus ethics charges against Newt for which he was found guilty and required to pay a $300,000 penalty.

This helps in your defense of Newt's honor how exactly???
 
Grant said:
Was he or wasn't he impeached?
Click to expand...

He was impeached, and then acquitted. The Senate found him not guilty.

So, what's your point?
 
Grant said:
Yes, he was impeached by the House.

The Senate voted not to impeach.

Would that be correct?
Click to expand...

As noted by others, to be Impeached is similar to being indicted. Clinton will always be as the second President to ever be Impeached. But as noted, he was found "not guilty" in the trial, conducted by the Senate.
 
Grant said:
Yes, he was impeached by the House.

The Senate voted not to impeach.

Would that be correct?
Click to expand...

No.

The House can impeach, which means accuse of a crime.

The Senate then tries him, and either votes guilty, or acquits.

Clinton was impeached by the House and then acquitted by the Senate.
 
Wiggen said:
He was found not guilty. Impeachment was the trial. The vote of the Senate was the verdict.
Click to expand...

No, impeachment was the House voting for him to have a trial. The Senate then conducted the trial (with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as judge and members of the House as prosecutors) and found him no guilty. He remained President and nothing changed. Had he been convicted by the Senate, he would have been removed from office.
 
Clinton and Gingrich represent a microcosm of society that also included Jefferson, JFK, FDR, and LBJ to name a few. I'm sure they all lied about their infidelity. One of Clinton's problems is that he lied under oath. One of Gingrich's problems is that he got caught in his sexcapades as a non-president.

Not that I approve of their behavior but, God willing, the sun will rise tomorrow.
 
Catawba said:
So Clinton was found not guilty, versus ethics charges against Newt for which he was found guilty and required to pay a $300,000 penalty.

This helps in your defense of Newt's honor how exactly???
Click to expand...


The ethics charges against him were completely bogus in the first place, and pure partisan hackery...

In brief, David Bonior brought 75 ethics charges against Newt, 74 which were found to have no merit whatsoever (and people say that Ken Starr is on a "witch hunt?"). The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class "Renewing American Civilization" properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.

The first 'charge' from the ethics committee is that he "may have" violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.

The second 'charge' from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, Newt provided false information to the committee. And what was this "false information?" Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to "Renewing American Civilization." He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide. But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions. For this, there was an uproar about Newt's ethics, and he was fined.

Basically, Newt was fined $300,000 because he didn't read his lawyers' documents carefully. I could really get into the hypocrisy of this in light of the fact that people want to excuse Bill Clinton for lying under oath, (maybe if the course Newt had taught was about SEX the Democrats would feel differently) but that's not the point of this article.

Well, after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. "The ... course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician."

Well isn't that nice - and isn't that what Newt had been saying all along?

In other words, the ethics charges David Bonior filed against Newt were ALL bogus. Every single one of them. In the end, what was Newt's "ethics problems"? One of the papers filed by his lawyers had an error and Newt didn't catch it. That little oversight cost $300,000.

Newt Gingrich Cleared - Now How About a Refund?
Click to expand...

Well, ain't that grand...This smear is still being carried forward even though the IRS found nothing wrong, and it was a demo hit job by Bonior against Gingrich...


j-mac
 
Damn! How many more Gingrich Morality threads are you Lefties going to start on here? Scared to attack his platform, fiscal record, or policy proposals? Afraid they might outshine those of "The Annointed One"? What's the matter, three years of "Hope and Change" still isn't standing up to what the GOP candidates are proposing? Much fear I sense in you.

*Note: Funny how Newt's popularity ratings are soaring........even after the "big revelation" that he has some hefty baggage when it comes to his marriage values or lack thereof. :lol:
 
Clinton and Gingrich both remind me of Snake oil Salesmen.
 
j-mac said:
The ethics charges against him were completely bogus in the first place, and pure partisan hackery...
Click to expand...

Then why did the Republicans force him out of Congress and fine him $300,000.



Well, ain't that grand...This smear is still being carried forward even though the IRS found nothing wrong, and it was a demo hit job by Bonior against Gingrich...
Click to expand...

Doesn't have a thing to do with Republicans forcing him out of office for ethics violations.
 
Catawba said:
Then why did the Republicans force him out of Congress and fine him $300,000.

Doesn't have a thing to do with Republicans forcing him out of office for ethics violations.
Click to expand...

He wasn't fined.

He made many enemies with the entrenched Republican Establishment. He was exonerated by the IRS and Federal Cirsuit Court of any true wrongdoing. His mistake was telling the political establishment to **** itself.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
He wasn't fined.

He made many enemies with the entrenched Republican Establishment. He was exonerated by the IRS and Federal Cirsuit Court of any true wrongdoing. His mistake was telling the political establishment to **** itself.
Click to expand...

"The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing."

Washingtonpost.com: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker
 
j-mac said:
The ethics charges against him were completely bogus in the first place, and pure partisan hackery...
Click to expand...

as was the impeachment of Bill Clinton. But, wait, Clinton was exonerated but Newt was not.

Pure partisan hackery???? interesting, the house voted 395-28 to reprimand and fine him. Seems to me there were more than 28 Republicans at the time (especially given he was the Speaker).

Sorry, you can have your opinion, but they are contrary to the facts..... I can think the sky is dark green, but it doesn't make it so....
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060135547 said:
Clinton and Gingrich represent a microcosm of society that also included Jefferson, JFK, FDR, and LBJ to name a few. I'm sure they all lied about their infidelity. One of Clinton's problems is that he lied under oath. One of Gingrich's problems is that he got caught in his sexcapades as a non-president.

Not that I approve of their behavior but, God willing, the sun will rise tomorrow.
Click to expand...

What people consistently fail to comprehend is not that Newt is a serial philander (as he is), but that the party that supposedly is all about family values and touts some type of moral high ground takes him seriously. Moreover, the fact that Christian Evangelicals would even consider him shows their own relative morality. Even Christian Evangelicals are showing that power is more important than principle.

If Newt is nominated, the Republicans can never again claim to have a moral compass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom