Discussion is locked
Of course reading the introductory line of the article clearly states where the writer is going. I have to admit that I have never listened to Newt until recently. Both parties have people that some would rather be more quiet. But I heard him speak his thoughts about our educational system in the US, how we got to our position of advantage, how we are losing it, and what we need to do to regain it. He was promoting his book, "Winning the Future". I listened cynically at first. It might be easy to pick apart a few specifics but, on the whole, I thought it was worth a listen. He's obviously a person with some intelligence. There have been many who get dismissed as being too bizarre in their forward thinking....and many of these we have rued not giving an ear to. I'm no fan or foe of Newts but I the interview I heard was worth the listen IMO.
... it's due on tax day.
... IRS clears Newt Gingrich's college course
... After considering the matter for three and a half years, the IRS issued a "technical advice memorandum" finding no violation of tax laws in the use of a tax-exempt entity to sponsor Gingrich's course, "Renewing American Civilization."
Gingrich began the course in 1993, before Republicans won control of the House and made him speaker. Gingrich's lectures were videotaped and widely distributed.
Democrats said it was a campaign gimmick and filed ethics complaints accusing him of illegal use of tax-exempt funds for political purposes. A tax expert hired by the House Ethics Committee said the course violated tax laws, and in 1997 Gingrich agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for making misleading statements to the ethics panel and failing to seek better legal advice before using tax-exempt money for the course.
As it turned out, the course was legal after all...
He should have his record cleared as well, and the 300,000 fine returned.
This should be the last time this is brought up against Newt, but as history has demonstrated, facts and resolutions of such things rarely get in the way where some are concerned.
"This audit took too long and cost too much," he said.
Now where have I heard that before when in the end crimes were committed!
....that if the course was determined to be legal, that Newt should have the amount of the fine returned to him. However I think Bob Dole is still entitled to the interest on his loan, being that the money probably would have been earning interest for him if he hadn't lent it to Newt. Whether Newt would have a case against the IRS (to recover the interest, being that he wouldn't have had to borrow the money in the first place if the IRS had ruled sooner) is a legal question I wouldn't know how to answer.
...as history has demonstrated, facts and resolutions of such things rarely get in the way where some are concerned.
That's true. For example, no evidence of wrongdoing was found in the Whitewater real estate investment (after all that time and money spent investigating it), yet you can bet it will be raised as a campaign issue if Hillary runs in '08.
... and others get convicted and go to jail? I could be mistaken. What would rightly come up for Hillary is more along the lines of those Rose Law Firm records and her little stock market bonanza. Also some of the shenanigans of her 2000 Senate campaign.
Hoping Jeannine Pirro -- Westchester County DA -- runs against her for the Senate. She's well enough known to make a good run for it.
As to the loan, I agree, Dole is owed the interest, and I don't think Congress should have to pay it, but they should return the fine.
But not either of the Clintons. But I'll betcha any amound of money that if she runs, the "scandal" will be dredged up in such a way as to make it sound like they were criminals despite the fact that even Ken Starr couldn't come up with any evidence that they did anything wrong.
I don't think her little stock market bonanza is any worse than that little cash-out of Bush's (Harkin). I'd bet they both got some inside info.