Russert failed to challenge Gingrich's claim of exoneration by IRS in ethics controversy
SUMMARY: Tim Russert let Newt Gingrich claim, without
challenge, that the Internal Revenue Service "said there was nothing
wrong" with funding a college course he had taught with tax-deductible
donations. However, in its final report, the IRS wrote that "if the
[House] Ethics Committee had rendered full cooperation with our examination,
the transcripts might have affected our conclusion."
On the December 17 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) claimed that, in 1999, the Internal Revenue Service "said there was nothing wrong" with funding a college course he had taught with tax-deductible donations, for which Gingrich was investigated by the House ethics committee, fined $300,000, and formally reprimanded by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Russert failed to challenge Gingrich's claim. In fact, even though the IRS' final report found no evidence of wrongdoing on Gingrich's part, it also said that the House ethics committee refused to provide all the evidence requested by the agency, despite recommendations from congressional investigators that evidence collected by the ethics committee be sent to the IRS, and that "if the Ethics Committee had rendered full cooperation with our examination, the transcripts might have affected our conclusion."
As Media Matters for America noted when Gingrich's former press secretary and current Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley baselessly claimed that the investigation into Gingrich was a Clinton administration vendetta, the IRS' inquiry was first reported nine months after the ethics committee -- which is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans -- unanimously voted in December 1995 to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether Gingrich had violated tax law. The New York Times reported on December 23, 1995, that the ethics committee had selected former Justice Department prosecutor James Cole to "investigate accusations that a course Mr. Gingrich taught at two colleges in Georgia was a political effort intended to circumvent tax laws." The Washington Post also reported on December 23, 1995, that there was a "question of whether Gingrich violated tax laws by using tax-deductible contributions to finance" the college course.
The ethics committee released its final report on January 17, 1997, and voted 7-1 to recommend that the House fine and reprimand for failing to obtain adequate legal advice regarding the courses and for providing false information to the committee. The New York Times reported on January 18, 1997, that "investigators urged the full ethics committee to send the evidence it had collected to the Internal Revenue Service to assist its investigations involving Kennesaw State University and Reinhardt College, where Mr. Gingrich's college course was taught." The IRS released the findings of its investigation in early 1999. According to a February 27, 1999, Los Angeles Times article:
On its face, the IRS finding seems unequivocal. The 74-page document systematically examines the facts in the complex case and determines that the foundation "did not serve the private interests of" Gingrich or the GOP and did not play a role in any campaign.
However, in an unusual caveat, the IRS said that its conclusions were based "upon the facts available to us" and the agency did not have access to transcripts of witnesses' statements before the House Ethics Committee, which the panel refused to provide.
"It is possible that if the Ethics Committee had rendered full cooperation with our examination, the transcripts might have affected our conclusion," the IRS memorandum said.
It still is not clear why the ethics panel did not provide the IRS with the transcripts.
There also have been debates over whether IRS supervisors really examined the evidence fully or simply took a bow in hopes of heading off a clash with a powerful figure.
From the December 17 broadcast of Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: But you were reprimanded by the full House. They --
GINGRICH: For having signed a letter.
RUSSERT: -- and that you paid a fine or -- $300,000 --
GINGRICH: That's right.
RUSSERT: It's significant. It's significant.
GINGRICH: It is. I just said it's significant. And I paid the $300,000. Now, but here's the point: The rest of the stuff in that article about my -- the ethics charges are false. The Internal Revenue Service said there was nothing wrong with the course. I am a Ph.D. in history. I was teaching a college course. It's totally -- it goes back to free speech. I was allowed to teach courses. The Federal Election Commission was reprimanded by a federal judge and told that the charges against GOPAC were totally false. All in the course -- those things didn't make page one. And I fully expected my opponents -- remember, the Democrats were very mad after the '94 election. They had lost power. They -- for the first time in 40 years. They knew it couldn't be their fault, so it must be mine.
newtie also tried to take credit for the "balanced budgets" of the clinton era. conveniently ignoring that it was the tax increase on the wealthy, passed by a democratic congress in 94, that set the stage for those balanced budgets. gingrich and the republicans turned around used those tax votes to oust the democras in the 94 elections. then gingrich supported bush's tax cuts that, as predicted, brought back the deficits.
gotta read a little more carefully.
Interesting note is that Republicans hate lawyers because of the supposed dishonest ways they "win" cases, but it's crystal clear that they don't mind it when they benefit themselves. "one law for them, another for us" sure seems like a hypocritical rant now, doesn't it?
for the rightys- a "staff member" wrote the email, a "lawyer" wrote the letter, I just signed it.
And when I got busted, I paid some money. How much more integrity can you ask of a person?
... the Republican's fault. It's either a misunderstanding, a set-up by the Dems, or that damned Liberal Media.
"I paid the $300,000 [for a huge ethical infraction], and the IRS said I did nothing wrong. So what's the problem" -- Newt
The QUESTION is, if you did nothing ethically WRONG, why'd you pay the fine? Hmmm?
Gingrich paid a fine.
Clinton settled a nuisance lawsuit.
Not even the slightest equivalence.
I was going to mention the fact that Clinton willfully gave up his Arkansas law license for 5 years for giving misleading testimony under oath. But I'm not a Clinton hater and nobodys perfect.
and for those who know their civics, this is not BTW a slam at you bruce your post was just handy :)
Why was that not purjury?
Why was what not perjury? "Lying" about having sex with Monica Lewinsky under oath? Because if one does not consider "oral sex" to be actual sex, then one is not lying if one says he "didn't have sexual relations with that woman." Witness how many young people are amazed that they've contracted an STD but "All I did was **** him, its not like we had sex or anything." Was it tricky of Clinton? Possibly/probably. Was what he did perjury? No. At least, not in the view of the many (which could also be a pretty strong reason as to why he was not prosecuted for it).
I have a feeling that no one in Washington, D.C. wanted oral sex to be considered sex, otherwise a TON of them could be accused of cheating on their spouses. I have nothing to back this up, just a thought.
-Krenith
there is an actual definition of perjury, you might want to look it up. But we can already see you slept through any civic's class you might have had.
the answer is;
Perjury only applies to facts MATERIAL to the case being adjudicated. And since his relationship with Ms Lewinski did not fit with the case he was deposed for it was not material, therfore it could be misleading but it was not perjury. Also bear in mind that the type of sex they engaged in was in fact outside of the definition of 'sex' that the jude supplied and insited be used.
not jude!
hey judge? anyway, you are correct about the perjury, which gingrich tried to say clinton had commited. but when some people try to claim that they did not have sex, legally perhaps it did not fit the question i'm not sure, the fact is i doubt if anyone came home and said they had oral sex at the office, i doubt their spouse would say well ok that's not sex. having said that, the whole impeachment stuff was nonsense, and a distraction from more serious business.
this was a manufactured case in all senses of the word, it was designed to be a 'perjury trap' and it might have worked except the judge in the case published a specific set of guidlines of what 'sex' is. By chance him only recieving said BJ and not , ahem, recipricating did not in fact fit the definition they were supposed to follow. So in my mind the blame for that is on the judge.
As to it being material, the Jones fake case was about unwelcome advances and harassment, this was not the case with Monica, nor has it ever been shown Bill ever had to use such tactics. Seeing how many are willing it is doubtful to me.