So... what DOES Nancy know? Anyone know?

[FredStembottom]

From a Ben "dukes of Hazzard" Jones article concening Gingrich ethics violations:

"Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader in the House who sat on the ethics committee during the ethics investigations, has further stoked the fire by suggesting that "there is something I know" about Gingrich that will mean he will never become president.

Pelosi has refused to disclose what she knows."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/26/dukes-of-hazzard-newt-gingrich?intcmp=239

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. There has been a FOIA filed for the Ethics Committee documents

Time will tell.

Be curious as to how fast that can get turned around...

[FredStembottom]

2. Or... Nancy maybe just says it out loud....

....sometime in October?

[KaryninMiami]

3. Let's just hope she stays mum for a while

And saves it for after he gets nominated- if that actually happens which is doubtful. But just in case Mittens somehow blows it so completely that Newt makes it to the nomination (at which point many GOP heads will be exploding live and in full color)- then that would be the time for us to find out what it is she knows.

[nanabugg]

4. Maybe someone could find out from Larry Flynnt? nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. I thought he offered up big bucks for DC Madam scoop.

Nothing ever came of it (other than her unfortunate "suicide&quot

[justiceischeap]

6. She's made it quite clear that everything she knows is in the report

Nancy is just playing with mental midgets and enjoying the results. She made that statement last week and then Romney demands an investigation. See how that works? Nancy says something fairly innocuous and Mittney bites on it. He's doing the work for the Democratic party.

[Lil Missy]

7. I can't imagine anything that would turn the bottom feeders that support him.

[Cleita]

25. Maybe being caught having gay sex in a public men's room,

but maybe that's okay with them too, just because they seem to have no problems with hypocrisy if it's one of their own.

[jberryhill]

8. This keeps getting recirculated

Here's the thing....

Have YOU read all of the public documents, including the ethics committee report in question?

No, and neither has anyone else spreading this "Pelosi has confidential information she's threatening to release" stuff. She didn't.

I believe it is utterly masterful to deflect attention away from the damning stuff that is already public, by suggesting that Pelosi has some kind of secret dirt.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

10. good interpretation. n/t

[FredStembottom]

14. I guess I don't understand this response.

I haven't read anything about anything.

I was just wondering what this rather startling quote stuck midway into a report from the UK was referring to.

You say: I believe it is utterly masterful to deflect attention away from the damning stuff that is already public, by suggesting that Pelosi has some kind of secret dirt.

Who's masterful? Who's suggesting? Did Nancy never say this?

(Edit cuz' I don't know how to use the quote thingies right.)

[jberryhill]

16. Let me see if I can untangle it

A while back Pelosi made a statement to the effect that once the opposition researchers start digging into why Newt was investigated and fined in the first place, that they will be on the mother lode of opposition research and insight into Newt's character. She was on the committee and is familiar with everything that was dug up - and made of record - as a consequence of those proceedings.

Her comment to that effect has been spun. It has been spun very well. In a nutshell, the spin became "Pelosi is going to break the law and release confidential information!"

The effect was to deflect from what is in the PUBLIC RECORD to a nonsense claim amounting to "Nancy Pelosi has confidential information she is threatening to release!"

In other words, the claim "Nancy Pelosi has confidential information she is threatening to release" does two things:

1. It suggests the stuff in the public record is not so bad, and

2. There's no reason to go back and look at that stuff, since apparently Pelosi thinks (per the spin) that the really juicy stuff is not in the public record.

Let's say you and I are having a discussion about Russia. I've never read War And Peace. In fact, I don't even know what the book is about. Let's say you are very familiar with Russian literature, and you say to me:

"Well, having taken courses in Russian literature, I know a lot more about the Russian character than you do."

Would it be correct of me to run around claiming that you have some sort of "secret information" about Russian literature?

No.

But that is how that comment is being spun.

[FredStembottom]

24. It's still a little over my head.

Not a jab at you, jberry, I am just not quite "getting it".

This little aside in the Guardian UK is the very first I have heard of this.

I guess, Step 1, I would ask if that is a direct quote from her?

Just by itself, it is startled me like I haven't been startled in awhile!

Step 2: you are saying that this quote has been seized on in the media - but being presented in a false context?

That's always likely.

Step 3: And the context is: Nothing about Newt's ethics violations means anything until Nancy sings!

I think I just explained it to myself! But check my work......

(my 'puter glitched very badly as I tried to post this twice before.)

[jberryhill]

26. I'm just not doing a good job of explaining it

[FredStembottom]

29. That's OK - we got there.

...and it's a good point.

[librechik]

38. well said and 100% correct--Nancy is speaking of transcipts on the public record

that no one has dug into yet--even though they are available. That says something in itself about the media today. And the Dem campaign committees. Why is this still under wraps?

[Joe Shlabotnik]

9. my suspicion is that Nancy has been talking to Larry Flynt.

Check your church lady repulsion at the door: Flynt ain't dead and has the where-with-all to come and go as he pleases. Thankfully, regardless of how you might view his smut, he is a champion of the bill of rights, and not a friend of conservative ideologues. This is one man who is often (mistakenly) thrown under the progressive political bus, yet Republican and PTB folks, display him as the great satan, furthering the stereotypes that we are all lawless, freesex, anarchist hippies. Flynt destroyed Bob Livingston and many others, lets see where this goes! My money is on Flynt. Conventional Morals aside he is a Patriot. DO NOT LET HIM BE SLANDERED AS ANYTHING BUT.

[JDPriestly]

11. I have a theory about "what Nancy knows."

It's just a theory based on what I see and comments I have seen in the media.

I think that Newt is mentally unbalanced and extremely difficult to work with. His tendency toward a bi-polar personality drives the people who have to work with him closely kind of crazy.

He asserts himself into a position that appears to be that of a leader and then gets on people's nerves by going off on tangents. He is remembered for carrying a bucket with him in Congress to remind people that he had ended the long tradition of delivering ice to the offices of members of Congress. That custom was, of course, no longer appropriate, but Gingrich made such a deal of his having ended it that it kind of got on the nerves of some of his colleagues.

Gingrich is full of himself -- but Romney is too. Take your pick. They are both losers. But Gingrich is viewed as one who goes off on tangents.

I think we have seen the problem with Gingrich during the primary campaign. He has an incredible temper and is a "my way or the highway" kind of guy. When he wants something, he has no sense of restraint, moral or emotional. He would not make a good president and is not liked by some important people who have tried or been required to work with him in the past.

This is the sort of thing that Nancy Pelosi would know. She would appreciate the importance of it. A politician has to be trusted and liked. Gingrich has a lot of political foes, and not all of them are Democrats.

That's my guess, but it is just a guess. Gingrich is a flawed candidate. He will not make it to the nomination.

[Raine]

12. Oh so that's what that IDIOTIC bucket was for!

THANKS for that bit of info, I've been wondering.

[FredStembottom]

13. Just to be clear.....

... you feel that Nancy is commenting on an unstable personality?
One that would never allow him to be voted into the presidency rathe than any further ethics bombs that haven't come out?

I can see that in her comment, yes.

[GoCubsGo]

15. She knows he'll never be President.

And, she has said as much. There is no "Pelosi refused to disclose what she knows." She said everything she knows has been made public. It's all out there for people to know, as well--if they can be bothered to go and look for it. From what I understand, there are thousands of pages of stuff.

[jberryhill]

17. Correct

But by spinning this as "Nancy has secret juicy stuff," the incentive to actually dig through the public information is diminished.

[GoCubsGo]

18. Exactly right!

And, that's why Nancy put the "coy" spin on it. She knows the mentality of the right. They won't believe anything coming from her, so they need to go look for themselves.

[Shankapotomus]

44. I think she didn't say why

because she is polite and didn't want to speak of something embarrassing to someone...even if it was Gingrich.

[AtomicKitten]

36. Correct.

And she said so when confronted with the mischaracterization of her remarks.

Here's a link to the 1,280 pg ethics report that is and always was available online: http://ethics.house.gov/committee-report/matter-representative-newt-gingrich

[mackattack]

20. by her saying that

it looks like the dems are out to stop Newt. As such, the conservatives will think that dems fear newt and they will vote for him. The dems see newt as an easier opponent. so its a false flag operation do get the easier guy elected.

[FredStembottom]

22. I've been warning this all along.

Newt is a real threat.

My conservative friends can overlook anything, anything at all when it comes to guys who toss the red meat to them.

[mackattack]

23. Conservatives

generally dont care about scandal if it means their guy wins. Good point.

[Life Long Dem]

27. " Pelosi has refused to disclose what she knows."

I don't have a problem with this. When the timing is right...

[Samantha]

28. Here is my "theory" I posted on another thread discussing this subject (no facts)

It might be possible that Ethics Committee recommended that Gingrich not be allowed to hold any office of public trust. There were many counts that were dismissed. That leads one to think about how things work in Washington -- the Committee "gave" him a break of some of the counts but he would have had to have given something back. Perhaps because of the amount of the fine being reduced he signed off on conditions the Committee submitted, thinking if some of the counts were dismissed the fine would not be as horrific. (As it was, someone else paid the $300,000 fine on his behalf -- might have been Dole, can't remember for sure.)

Gingrich probably figured at that time he didn't care if he worked for the Federal Government or any state government the rest of his life in an elected capacity because he planned to move into the private sector and make a substantial amount more in money.

I was researching this the other evening and saw that when a member of Congress is impeached and found guilty, that member could be barred for ever again holding an office of public trust. So perhaps it was one of the Committee's recommendation that this prohibition be applied to Gingrich since obviously there was a model in place that justified such recommendation, and perhaps for the reasons above Gingrich signed off on all the conditions the Committee required, leaving just the one ethics charge.

So if that were true, Gingrich would be barred from ever holding the Office of the President of the United States.

When Nancy Pelosi said he would never be President of the United States, the Republicans could nominate him, that was closely followed by the phrase "I know things." It was just the way she said it that made me jump to the conclusion she, as a member of that Committee, knew Gingrich would never hold another office of public trust.

Okay, taking off my conspiracy hat now, and waiting for your chastisements....

Sam

[FredStembottom]

30. That would be stunning if Newt gets the nod...

... and the former commitee members pull out the Do Not Pass Go card!

But... nothing ever seems absolute in D.C.

[Samantha]

33. Well, as I said before the precedent has been set for impeached Congressmen

so I don't think it would have been out of the ordinary to include a clause that Gingrich could never serve in a position of public trust again. As I said above, I don't think he planned to -- I think he planned on making a financial killing in the public sector as others do when they leave Congress, and he was more intent of getting that fine lowered. As it was, he didn't have the funds to pay the $300,000.

But it was just the way Pelosi said "I know things ...." followed by (paraphrasing) he will never be President. Sounded like a fact, didn't it? And yes, it would be stunning, but nothing is surprising in politics anymore, right?

Sam

[FredStembottom]

42. Thanks, Sam.

Cheerful thoughts, that's for sure.

[jberryhill]

32. "Gingrich would be barred from ever holding the Office of the President of the United States"

Can you explain why you believe Congress has the power to determine who may be allowed to be president.

The Constitution requires the President to be 35, a natural born citizen, and a resident for 14 years prior to taking office.

Other than some language in the 14th Amendment designed to keep out Confederates, please explain how a Congressional resolution would trump the seating of a president who had otherwise satisfied the Article II requirements and had gained the requisite number of electors.

[Samantha]

35. I don't think Congress has the power to determine who may be allowed to be president

but evidently Congress does not have the power (the Ethics Committee) to exclude some members of Congress from ever holding a position of public trust again. That precedent has been set, and if Gingrich agreed with it as a condition for waiving the other ethics charges and avoiding a bigger fine, I will say he excluded himself.

Sam

[jberryhill]

39. They can kick him out of Congress, and they can bar him from an appointed job

Congress does not have the power either to exclude someone otherwise qualified from running for or being president, nor do they have the power to extract an enforceable agreement to that effect.

And, if you think about it, it would be offensive to the Constitution for Congress to have that power.

[Samantha]

40. I think Congress can bar an impeached official from ever holding an office of public trust

In cases, of impeachment, the conviction results in an automatic expulsion (two-thirds vote in the Senate) but the disqualification to ever hold an office of public trust again can be imposed by the vote of a simple majority.

Here is Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7:

"Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

And with regard to disqualification from holding an office of public trust in the future, here is a discussion on that:

"The plain language of section four seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.771 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,772 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.7" at

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/51-removal-and-disqualification.html

It only takes a simple majority vote to disqualify.

But Gingrich was reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee, not impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Following the $300,000 fine imposed upon him for one violation, the last 83 of 84 charges were dropped.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/ethics.htm

My post suggested Gingrich might have made some concession in order to get those charges dropped. That is usually how things go in Washington; you have to give something to get something. I don't think there is anyway of knowing unless one actually sat on the Ethics Committee or had complete access to its confidential report what actually might have transpired. So as far as whether any "agreement" is enforceable, I do not know whether that issue has actually ever been challenged.

What I suggested is a possibility, not a fact. But here is what Pelosi said at that time:

"Rep. Steven Schiff (R-N.M.), a member of the ethics investigative subcommittee that charged Gingrich, called the speaker's submission of false information to the panel "a comedy of errors." But Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called it a "violation of trust. . . . We trust each other that we will deal truthfully with each other."

After all, we don't know the literal reason, just suppositions, as to why he resigned his speakership before the end of that same year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm

Sam

[jberryhill]

41. As you note, he wasn't impeached

And the notion of a "secret deal" not to run for president seems more than a bit odd.

Secondly, whether the presidency is an "Office of honor, Trust or Profit" is an open question.

The Impeachment clause extends to the “President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States”, suggesting the President and Vice President are not "civil Officers of the United States" since it doesn't say "all other civil Officers". see, S. Tillman, Opening Statement: Why President-Elect Obama May Keep His Senate Seat After Assuming the Presidency, University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra, Vol. 157, pp. 134, 137-38 (2008).

[slackmaster]

31. She knows that his nickname at prep school was "Appaloosa"

And she's not saying how she knows.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. That Newt is unelectable

[KharmaTrain]

37. I'd Be More Interested In His Divorce Hearings...

Was Cealis the only "Jane Doe"?? Or were there others?

Curious minds who need more entertainment want to know.

[lonestarnot]

43. She wiped her butt on his sleave. That's what she knows. She will tell us about that soon.