By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
February 5, 1999
Almost no Democrat can talk about impeachment or censure without first giving us a little lecture on "fairness." The process, we are told, must be "fair." Is it "fair" to talk about removing the president from office merely because he lied under oath and obstructed justice? Is it really fair that he should be "humiliated" by having people testify in person in the well of the Senate? All the Democrats and enough Republicans thought it wouldn't be fair, so we must believe that allowing 3 hours for the House Managers to present their case without witnesses is sufficient.
By any chance does ANYONE remember what the news was in January 1997? There was a leader in the House of Representatives named Newt Gingrich that the Democrats were determined to get rid of. They cooked up one "ethics" charge after another - something like 500 of them over the years - and finally the House Ethics Committee, pushed by the liberal Democrats and chaired by a weak Republican, Rep. Nancy Johnson, voted that the Speaker of the House "could have avoided a public controversy if he had sought and followed specialized legal advice" on the tax exempt status of his To Renew America course.
Newt Gingrich's main antagonist was Rep. David Bonior who routinely lied about Gingrich, and his lies were just as routinely printed as fact by the media. For example, Bonior released a statement in December 1996 entitled "Speaker Gingrich Guilty of Tax Fraud" claiming "The committee has found that Mr. Gingrich's activities violated U.S. Tax Laws."
Bonior said, and the media dutifully reported without argument, that Newt purposely lied to the subcommittee. It is a charge, unchallenged, that has been used time and again in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. "Newt Gingrich did the same thing."
He didn't. The Ethics Committee finding never accused Newt Gingrich of intentionally misleading the committee. The finding said that Newt "should have known that statements produced by his lawyer were not accurate." THAT is what Newt agreed to. He should have stopped leading the House long enough to read the 52 page document to make sure his expensive lawyer had it right. Newt said, "I did not manage the effort intensely enough to thoroughly direct or review information being submitted to the committee on my behalf."
Bonior said that Newt committed tax fraud and used money intended for inner city children to fund his "political empire." That was a lie. The Ethics Subcommittee did not find Newt had violated any tax law. It found that "In the Matter of Representative Gingrich the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: On January 17, 1997, the Committee met in executive session and, by a vote of 7-1, recommended the following in the matter of Representative Gingrich : a reprimand for violating a rule of the House; and a $300,000 cost assessment to reimburse the committee for the investigation. Prior to this action, the Committee held a hearing on this matter. Testimony was heard from James M. Cole, Special Counsel to the Committee and J. Randolph Evans, Counsel to Representative Gingrich ".
The Rule of the House referred to was a suggestion that members of Congress hire tax experts to advise them of tax law. Gingrich didn’t. He relied on the advice of an accountant. Several Democrats CLAIMED he had used a tax exempt status for his college course, and he should have used his political status for it. Yesterday, three and one half years after the issue first was presented to Internal Revenue Service, two years after Newt Gingrich was vilified and billed the $300,000 for the cost of an investigation that, IRS announced Gingrich was right all along about the tax law. His college course was not political - it was educational. Gingrich, now driven from office, did not violate ANY TAX LAW. He was unfairly and unjustly vilified and fined by determined Democrats and he was innocent all along.
Jim Nicholson, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, wants to know why it took IRS so long to make a decision, and is demanding an apology from Congressional Democrats who leveled the attacks in the first place.
"The Clinton administration Internal Revenue Service owes an explanation why it took three-and-a-half years to determine that Newt Gingrich's college course wasn't political, something they should have known after watching 20 hours of tapes," Nicholson said. He also called for an apology from House Democrat Whip David Bonior (D-MI), who filed the ethics charge against Gingrich which spurred the IRS audit.
"The trumped-up charges by Congressional Democrats, led by David Bonior, were politically-motivated attacks from the outset. Bonior and the Democrats owe Newt Gingrich an apology, and all Americans should demand an explanation of why the Internal Revenue Service became a weapon for 41 months of political water torture against the most prominent opponent of the Clinton-Gore Democrat agenda."
The IRS audit of Gingrich's course in American history, "Renewing American Civilization," concluded today with a determination that the course was, as Gingrich had contended all along, non-political in nature; the ruling absolves the former Speaker of any and all tax liability in connection with the course.
David Bonior, as recently as December 18, 1998, called for "fairness" in the matter before the House - the Impeachment of Bill Clinton. "… this time problem that the gentleman has raised, the 4 hours, runs to the fairness issue, and we note that in the unanimous consent request there is nothing here to give the American people a chance to see this Congress vote on the option that they would like to see that would bring this country together: the option of censure."
When it is Democrat Bill Clinton who has disgraced the Office of the Presidency by requiring oral sex from a young intern and then has committed perjury and obstruction of justice - Bonior claimed it did not rise to an "impeachable offense. But, when it was Newt Gingrich, falsely accused of far less serious transgressions, Bonier wanted to force Gingrich not only out of the Speaker’s seat, but also out of office.
Is this "fairness?" Well, no, not if you are using the dictionary definition of the word: "not favoring one more than any other; just; honest; according to the rules."
However, you have to remember you are living during the Clinton Administration. Words don’t mean what you were taught they meant as a child. Oral sex, while having the word "sex" in it, is not sex. And "fairness" as used by Democrats does not mean playing by the rules, or being honest. It means what it is defined to mean by the group Bonior and 56 other members of Congress belong to, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
DSA describes "fairness" as an agenda which will bring about socialism, redistribution of wealth, government control, the end of free enterprise and higher taxes. This is their idea of "Fairness:"
The Fairness Agenda for America |
|---|
| 1. Enact a Fairness Budget for America |
| America's abundant resources must be used to build a decent society. We propose cutting military spending and corporate giveaways and reinstating progressive taxation, while reducing revenues to invest in human resources, such as schools and health clinics, and in infrastructure, such as mass transit. |
| 2. Ensure Jobs, Living Wages, Benefits & Worker Rights for All |
| Our nation depends on a vigorous, creative, and innovative workforce that is assured basic rights. We propose government job creation in areas of high unemployment, laws requiring profitable companies to compensate workers and communities affected by job cuts, elimination of tax breaks for companies that provide excessive executive compensation, and stronger protections against labor rights violations and all forms of discrimination. |
| 3. Fight for Equality for All |
| Despite recent progress, widespread discrimination, wage gaps by sex and race, and de facto segregation still exist. Two means of addressing these problems include sufficient funding for agencies that administer anti-discrimination laws and reinforcing affirmative action, while exploring the integration of class-based criteria into such programs. |
| 4. Promote a Just and Sustainable Global Economy |
| Free trade agreements and World Bank/IMF structural adjustment programs (SAPs) have increased inequalities at home and abroad. We propose an international dialogue to develop a an alternative trade and development initiative that encompasses the protection of worker and women's rights, enviromental standards, and food security, and tackles the immigration and the need to reduce inequalities. |
| 5. Support Demilitarization, Human Rights & a New Internationalism |
| We propose: cutting the defense budget; negotiating with Russia to eliminate nuclear weapons; shifting R&D priorities toward pressing domestic needs; stopping NATO expansion; ending subsidies for arms exporters; banning covert operations; shifting from unilateral military, aid, and peacekeeping missions abroad to multilateral responses; and promoting real human rights abroad, which include economic, social, and cultural rights. |
| 6. Guarantee Sustainable Communities & Environmental Justice |
| The Federal government has given states and localities more responsibilities without more power or money. We propose: distribution of more no-strings Federal funds, especially to poor communities; revisions in trade agreements to allow communities to enact strong environmental and labor laws; and retargetting Federal insurance, subsidies, and loans for community development. On environmental justice, we propose: promoting the right to a clean environment and replacing subsidies for polluters with subsidies for ecologically sound products and services. |
| 7. Provide Adequate Social Investment |
| We propose: preserving social security and protecting it from privatization; remaking economic security structures to address the needs of the poor; expanding Medicare eligibility to people of all ages and income; creating a bill of rights to protect health care consumers; increasing funds for low-income housing assistance; and providing adequate funds for quality public education. |
| 8. Get Private Money out of Politics |
| Public outrage is increasing over the abuse of loopholes, systematic influence peddling, and political favors granted to special interests. We support initiatives to limit campaign spending, prohibit private campaign contributions to candidates, eliminate the need for fundraising, provide a financially level playing field, and tighten loopholes. |
The problem that folks like Sen. Trent Lott have is understanding that the word "fair" or "fairness" when used by a Democrat has nothing at all to do with fairness or bipartisanship. Trent Lott still believes that when someone urges him to be "fair," they are referring to equality of treatment, honesty. However, Clinton and others, especially the 56 members of the Democratic Socialists of America in Congress, who are pushing the so-called "fairness" agenda are thinking redistribution of wealth, big government and the destruction of people like Newt Gingrich.
The old form of "fairness" of course would require that the "high standard" Rep. Johnson talked about when sticking a $300,000 fine on Newt Gingrich apply to all members of Congress and other politicians - such as the President. On January 21, 1997 Rep. Johnson said, "Despite the pressures, we bring you today a bipartisan recommendation resolving the most complex charge against Representative Newt Gingrich. I ask for both my colleagues' rejection of the partisanship and animosity that has so deeply permeated the work of the House and for their support of the committee's resolution."
Rep. Johnson, it wasn’t bi-partisan. It was simple Democrat partisanship. Partisanship only works when both sides have the same basic goals, but different ideas of how to get there. You didn’t even understand what the Democrats’ goal was when you allowed them to push you into a course of action you KNEW was wrong - since there had been no rules or laws broken by Newt Gingrich. You mistook placating a demanding group with bipartisanship.
To contact Jim Nicholson of Republican National Committee write: E-mail: info@rnc.org; Website: http://www.rnc.org/ or call 202-863-8500
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com