More trouble for DeLay

True, though others were.

And Hillary should have been disbarred for her unethical conduct in the matter.

All Newt admitted to was that he was responsible for the discrepancy in his signed statements.

52. Mr. Gingrich engaged in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in that: regardless of the resolution of whether the activities described in paragraphs 2 through 41 constitute a violation of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, by failing to seek and follow the legal advice described in paragraphs 15 and 40, Mr. Gingrich failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that the activities described in paragraphs 2 through 41 were in accordance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; and on or about March 27, 1995, and on or about December 8, 1994, information was transmitted to the Committee by and on behalf of Mr. Gingrich that was material to matters under consideration by the Committee, which information, as Mr. Gingrich should have known, was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.

53. The conduct described in this Statement of Alleged Violation constitutes a violation of Rule 43(1) of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives.

I, Newt Gingrich, admit to the Statement of Alleged Violation dated December 21, 1996.

Not at all. I understand your Orwellian idea about how to abuse perjury statutes.

Dean Starr? Oh, my, it's pretty much impossible to imagine someone with that title who not that long ago was fixated on Clinton's penis. But I'll apologize anyway for that one.

False actually. Not a single person was convicted of any crime associated with Whitewater. NOT ONE. Starr convicted people of other crimes that had nothing to do with Whitewater. I challenge you to name the crime associated with Whitewater and the person convicted of it. (hint - McDougal's bank fraud had nothing to do with Whitewater.)

What Newt signed a statement admitting to was as follows:
(the final paragraphs of the committee allegation.)

Quote:

52. Mr. Gingrich engaged in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in that: regardless of the resolution of whether the activities described in paragraphs 2 through 41 constitute a violation of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, by failing to seek and follow the legal advice described in paragraphs 15 and 40, Mr. Gingrich failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that the activities described in paragraphs 2 through 41 were in accordance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; and on or about March 27, 1995,

Quote:

and on or about December 8, 1994, information was transmitted to the Committee by and on behalf of Mr. Gingrich that was material to matters under consideration by the Committee, which information, as Mr. Gingrich should have known, was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.

It appears Newt admitted more than just some 'discrepencies'.

He admitted it violated the ethics of Congress,

he admitted he failed to take appropriate steps before he started the class.

He admitted that the information given to the committee was "inaccurate, incomplete, and unrealiable"

That is not the same as your 'discrepencies.'

Your opinion doesn't change perjury law one bit.

Newt admitted to it because it was true. The committee had him dead to rights based on all the statements of Newt, his lawyer, and his tax attorney.

It is you that seems to hold the Orwellian concept that it is OK to claim truth is a lie.

As it was DeLay's Republican colleagues who rebuked him 3 seperate times, perhaps they are also involved in this "witchhunt" you consistently refer to, Orallroy. Imagine that? A "bi-partisan" witchhunt.

Why do you think Republicans tried to change their own ethics rules, Orallroy, when it worked so well when Mr. Earle went after mostly Democrats?

False charges? Orallroy, you really need to face reality.

There was no violation of any ethics rules with either act.

The reality is that the Democrats abuse the ethics process to mount witch hunts against Republicans.

However, it is noteworthy that they only rebuked DeLay with symbolic punishments. They did not do anything serious.

The ethics committee said it will take no action on the matter "pending further action" concerning the indictments or the Texas-based investigation that prompted them.

"There's no substance to any of them," DeLay said. "I have ultimate confidence in the ethics committee in doing the right thing."

However, it is noteworthy that they only rebuked DeLay with symbolic punishments. They did not do anything serious

The reality is that the Democrats abuse the ethics process to mount witch hunts against Republicans.

hmm.. So.. oralloy AGREES with every one of my points that show his earlier statements to be false.

Then he makes EXCUSES.

The most telling point of this whole exercise is that Newt has never said he signed it under pressure and it was all untrue. I'll take Newt's signature over your excuses any day oralloy.

Newt signed a statement saying there was. You can piss and moan and try to change facts into excuses all you want. Facts are facts. Newt signed it. It exists. Your Orwellian attempt to change the truth will not work here.

Quote:

The reality is that the Democrats abuse the ethics process to mount witch hunts against Republicans.

The reality is that you can't stand reality. FACTS EXIST. SIGNED PAPERS EXIST. You admit they exist.

While you are at it. Could you find where the law makes exceptions for papers signed under penalty of perjury when it comes to perjury law? Why do you think Newt doesn't say anything repudiating his signature?

You must watch Fox too much orallay A critique of the Fox coverage and how they attempted to downplay the severity of the rebukes can be found here. http://mediamatters.org/items/200410080009

parados wrote:

The most telling point of this whole exercise is that Newt has never said he signed it under pressure and it was all untrue. I'll take Newt's signature over your excuses any day oralloy.

Your belief in the forced confession does not change the fact that it was forced by a gang of witch hunters.

Well, I've heard cases over the years where corrupt police or prosecutors faked evidence against innocent people, some of whom plead guilty to avoid a long sentence.