This week, we witnessed an extraordinary appearance from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who told reporters that she has dirt on Newt Gingrich and would reveal at some later date — suggesting that the embarrassing disclosure would come from her service on an ethics review of Gingrich when he was House Speaker. I have been a long critic of Gingrich for some of his statements and policies, but I find Pelosi’s statements to be reprehensible and unethical. What concerns me, again, is the relative absence of criticism from Democrats who should show more principle in denouncing this type of politics.
Pelosi told reporters:
“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” she said. “I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.” She then added that she would release the bombshell “When the time’s right.”
That is not just grossly unfair to Gingrich but it could be a gross violation of ethics rules depending on her meaning. One of two things is true. First, and most likely, the information from the ethics investigation was not deemed appropriate to disclose and remains under confidential rules. If that is the case, Pelosi is violating the spirit if not the letter of the ethical rules in referring to the unreported allegations. Second, if the information was deemed appropriate to release and is so damaging, why did not the members release it in the interests of the public interest.
The House Ethics Rules contain the following provision:
Confidentiality of Records
The Privacy Act protects the records maintained by government agencies from disclosure, except for specified purposes or with the permission of the person to whom the record pertains. Although the statute does permit disclosure ―to either House of Congress, some agencies require Members to show written consent from their constituents before they will release the constituents‘ records to the Members. The Privacy Act does not apply to congressional documents. Historically, however, communications between Members and constituents have been considered confidential and should generally not be made public without the constituent‘s consent.
The rules mention confidentiality guarantees 27 times.
It is also incredibly unfair to announce that you have secret evidence of wrongdoing or impropriety against a candidate with a wink and a nod. It is degrading for our political system as well as to the House of Representatives as an institution. [Notably, this is the same Pelosi who recently pointed out that while a majority of Americans despise Congress, a larger minority did not despise Congress when she was Speaker.]
While her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, insisted Pelosi “was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware.” That is not what the press comments suggested. Pelosi said she would release information when the time was right. If she was referring to material already in the public domain, she was intentionally misleading the media in order to impugn the character of a candidate. Why would it be news that Pelosi was prepared to restate what is already known in public. The reference to the ethics investigation suggested knowledge beyond what was released to the public. No matter how you feel about Gingrich, that is unfair and wrong.
Such comments come close to defamation lines. A member can cite the speech and debate clause as well as common law privilege against such claims. However, statements off the floor or outside of legislative proceedings are generally not privileged. Here the clear import is that there is some deadly scandalous information that has yet to be disclosed against Gingrich. Unfortunately, as a former public official and a public figure, Gingrich falls under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard which requires actual knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard. There are also robust protections for opinion. Pelosi can insist that, while others may not be amazed by the dirt, she thought it was fatal. Moreover, she can insist (with her office’s later rationalization) that she was only discussing public information.
The difficult in Gingrich making a case for a tort does not make it right. Frankly, some liability here would be helpful in cleaning up the current cesspool of politics. The question is whether the House will respond to the use of the ethics process in this way. In the meantime, Pelosi should apologize to both Gingrich and her colleagues . . . and the American people. I do not buy the argument that this was just a promise to repackage what is already known or available. The material reviewed by the committee was not all made public and, if she was simply promising to point out material that is already available, she conveyed that in a remarkably odd fashion. If you are not going to share the nature and basis of your allegations, then don’t mention them until you are ready to explain the context and specific of the allegations. By the way, if you want to read the report, here it is.
House Rules: Code of Conduct Student 09-10
Source: Washington Post
FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.
Blouise,
I saw the report that our favorite ex-governor is going away for 14 years and if I remember correctly, he will have to serve at least 85% of that sentence.
I agree with Mespo that Pelosi doesn’t need secret information to show evidence of just how sleezy Newt is.
As a side note and speaking of reality:
Rod R. Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois, was sentenced on Wednesday to 14 years in federal prison for 18 felony corruption convictions
Why anyone would be surprised that a criminal broke the law?
I’m giving myself efficiency bonus for that sentence applying to both parties in this case.
Ethics violation reports should be fully disclosed to the public as soon as they are finished. They should not be used by one mobster to threaten another mobster.
WHOOP!!!!
Get the popcorn and settle back with your reading glasses. Here is the full 1,280 page report.
http://ethics.house.gov/committee-report/matter-representative-newt-gingrich
Pelosi was made Speaker of the House because she had the longest and most comprehensive catalog of favors owed and deals made in the House, and a goodly portion of those favors and deals were dirty. As a Californian and a Democrat, I loathe and despise this woman, who is one of the sleaziest and dirtiest members of what is a sleazy and dirty institution.
Sorry, Nancy. Some of us did despise Congress when you were Speaker. Especially when you aided and abetted the treason of the Bush Administration by saying “impeachment is off the table” and willingly sold out our rights as citizens by approving the very unpatriotic PATRIOT Act.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJR_KGZO4U0&w=640&h=360]
Scott, I don’t know who “Ron Paul 202” is but if you want to support a candidate for US President and you hope to convince American voters of your reasoning you may want to learn to write English language sentences.
Unless you are actually an anti-Paul troll in which case you are doing a marvelous job of portraying Paulheads as not too bright.
What Observer said.
What mespo said.
Mespo,
I am in your camp….. But, I will take it further and include causus meetings as this is where partisan politics comes into play….and the public is screwed…… This statement is made with and by inside information…… Used to be limited staff was included in these meetings….
There Should be no Secrets on a GOP that the people should not know .that is a Slap to the face that Americans citizens should know when electing there best person for our Country .our PRESIDENT should be our proudest factor of us with no baggage .Ron Paul 202 for PRESIDENT
This is common, run of the mill, Pelosi bashing … dressed up a bit but otherwise completely ignorant of the role she plays in the Democratic Party. She’s the lightening rod … she draws the fire to the person or the issue and you can bet ol’ Newt is sweatin’ ’cause the spark is flaming.
Maybe the Orange Man, a Speaker with real pizzazz, a man’s man, will ride to his rescue. That would be a picture worth painting.
They were PUBLIC records, ok?
Source: Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo, http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/pelosi-to-gingrich-im-talking-about-public-records.php
Newt Gingrich reacted to Nancy Pelosi’s reminder to America that he was slapped with a $300,000 ethics violation by the House in the 1990s about as you’d expect: he accused Pelosi of violating ethics rules herself, and threatened to bring her up on charges.
Pelosi responded to that by sending TPM a link to the publicly-available cache of files on the Gingrich ethics case and informing Gingrich that she doesn’t need to breach the confidentiality of the ethics committee chamber to embarrass him.
“Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” a spokesperson for Pelosi said.
In a story published Monday, Pelosi told TPM’s Brian Beutler that her experience on the ethics panel had made her something of an expert on potential Gingrich opposition research.
“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi told Beutler. “I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”
A thick file full of what Pelosi is talking about can be found here, where its been in the public record for years.
Democrats are signaling they’re ready to turn their attention away from Mitt Romney and onto Gingrich, and stuff like the ethics report could be a major part of that. The report was written after then-Speaker Gingrich was investigated by his own GOP majority on 84 counts of ethics violations. The committee found Gingrich guilty of one of those counts and the full GOP-controlled House voted overwhelmingly to fine him $300,000. Some of the violations were sent to the IRS for investigation and Gingrich was eventually cleared of those charges.
Much of the coverage of Peolsi’s quote to TPM Monday suggested Pelosi was referring to a secret cache of documents that she’d bring out when the time was right. Instead, the Democratic leader of the House was suggesting Google search terms. In New York today, Gingrich held a press conference where he attacked Pelosi for her quote, and threatened her with ethics charges of her own.
“That’s a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I would hope that members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it,” Gingrich said.
I regard it as a useful education of the American people to see the tainted, political ethics operation Nancy Pelosi was engaged in and I would hope that the House would immediately condemn her if she uses any material that was gathered when she was on the ethics committee.
Gingrich called Pelosi’s quote “an early Christmas present.” He may regret those words now that everyone’s talking once again about one of the more embarrassing chapters from his political career.
13 Reasons Why Newt Will Never Be the GOP Nominee
Sure, his poll numbers are up, for now. But soon we won’t be the only ones recalling his many sordid achievements.
“Newt Gingrich is flying high. The former speaker of the House has rocketed to the top of the Republican polls, taking a 30-point lead in Florida and giving one-time GOP front-runner Mitt Romney a run for his money in New Hampshire. What’s more, the competition around him seems to be collapsing. Herman Cain is history; Romney has slowly but steadily lost support nationwide; Rick Perry is still making fun of himself for a gaffe everyone else stopped talking about last month; Michele Bachmann fell in a crowded primary forest and never made a sound. Gingrich, for one, is ready to declare victory. As he told ABC’s Jake Tapper on Thursday, “I’m going to be the nominee.”
Well, Gingrich may be on a roll, but he’s overlooking the one truly formidable candidate who stands between him and the nomination: former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He is in many ways the perfect foil for the current GOP front-runner. Here, in 13 episodes, is much of the baggage you’re likely to see aired soon in anti-Gingrich attack ads. For him, it won’t be Christmas in Iowa.”
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/13-reasons-why-newt-wont-win
…And in the meantime, the Right still gets to say that the President was born in Kenya. The same rules have to apply to both sides, or there are no rules.
While I don’t approve of Pelosi’s veiled threat, I don’t think anything produced by a Member under scrutiny for ethical violations should be confidential. It’s the public’s business that he’s conducting and I see no reason why it is protected from public view. I might make exception for trade secrets disclosed to a Member by a constituent but I would suppose these are few and far between. Secrecy is the enemy of freedom.
She may have info that wasn’t discussed in the ethics committee, and for Newt to prove it was in the report he would have to open the full report for all to see! I think the way she has been trashed and lied about all thees years, this looks fair under that standard the Republicans have set! I think she set a trap and he looked scared and very upset.
No matter the legal or ethical implications it was a low class statement, well beneath her. This sort of “In my hand I hold the names . . . ” sort of smear has been the hallmark of people like Noot not people like Pelosi. Tone deaf and ham-handed, she should be embarrassed.
Newton LeRoy will do a good enough job of trashing his campaign and this will just allow him to play the victim so its not good politics either.