is this right?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.benzinga.com/generallifemisc/movers-shakers/11/05/1118337/newt-gingrich-turns-embarrassment-into-potential-crimin
For an allegedly smart man, Republican Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich says and does some incredibly stupid things. He's such a poor manager of his own stories that it's a wonder how he was able to juggle so many mistresses over the years.

The latest (but probably not the last) gaffe involves Gingrich squirming his way out of an embarrassing scenario by admitting to an even worse scenario — one that could conceivably end in investigations, charges, and jail time.

The trouble started for Gingrich after it was revealed that he and his third wife, Callista, has a revolving credit line of $500,000 at Tiffany's (NYSE: TIF). While not a big deal in and of itself, it was a bit of an embarrassment of riches for a man seeking the nomination for President. It certainly doesn't endear him to middle class primary voters who are struggling to make ends meet.

Gingrich's explanation to voters? It was a fiscally responsible credit account, because it was zero percent interest. In other words, he had the account because it represented a good deal.

Read more: http://www.benzinga.com/generallifemisc/movers-shakers/11/05/1118337/newt-gingrich-turns-embarrassment-into-potential-crimin#ixzz1O80zfV7B

[AZRedhawk44]

How does a $500k line of credit at a prestigious jeweler's boutique wind up with "investigations, charges, and jail time?"

I accept that folks that run for POTUS are far wealthier than me.

Gingrich isn't trying to woo the Unionocracy or the Welfare State.  Those votes are already solidly in the "D" camp.  They're the ones that get pissy over private wealth.

This story, so far, seems like a deliberate muckraker.


I ain't voting for Gingrich because he's not "R" enough.  My ideal "R" candidate probably has a $2,000,000 line of credit at Tiffany's.  But he's discrete enough that no one knows about it.

[TommyGunn]

   Poor ol' Newtie .......  Gawd forbid anyone should have an account at Tiffany's. 
I feel so sorry for him. 
He has other problems.  This is silly.

[roo_ster]

Plenty of reasons to take a pass on Newt.  This is not one of them.

[makattak]

Plenty of reasons to take a pass on Newt.  This is not one of them.

Other than his dumb handling of it. Having the account? He should have said, "yes, I had one. It's also completely paid off, what's the big deal? I love my wife and I want to get her nice things, is that wrong?"

But another example of Newt's poor public relations.

[roo_ster]

Newt is a prime example of someone who is intelligent, but lacks wisdom.  Bill Clinton was similar in that way, but with more base cunning.

[makattak]

Newt is a prime example of someone who is intelligent, but lacks wisdom.  Bill Clinton was similar in that way, but with more base cunning.

Well said.

[RevDisk]

How does a $500k line of credit at a prestigious jeweler's boutique wind up with "investigations, charges, and jail time?"

If he was given special financial consideration (say significantly lower rate), it could be unreported conflict of interest.  That can have legal implications. 


I honestly don't get folks' support for Newt.  Normally, I'm not one to judge folks' personal life.  But the guy does have a repeated documented history of significantly amoral behavior.  Do you really think he will be any ethical or moral in his political dealings than his private ones?   Even that I could overlook.  Honestly, I could.  Personal should be personal, public should be public.  Except...  if he's dumb enough to be CAUGHT that many times screwing up, is he worthy of office?  Clinton was amoral and did many unethical things.  He was intelligent or cunning enough not to get caught in a significant manner.  Bad person, sure.  But unfortunately, he's been the best President we've had within my lifetime (I'm 29).  Yes, it is painful to say that.  It's not even a remote endorsement of him, it's a comment on the competition.

Rooster is correct.

[makattak]

If he was given special financial consideration (say significantly lower rate), it could be unreported conflict of interest.  That can have legal implications. 


I honestly don't get folks' support for Newt.  Normally, I'm not one to judge folks' personal life.  But the guy does have a repeated documented history of significantly amoral behavior.  Do you really think he will be any ethical or moral in his political dealings than his private ones?   Even that I could overlook.  Honestly, I could.  Personal should be personal, public should be public.  Except...  if he's dumb enough to be CAUGHT that many times screwing up, is he worthy of office?  Clinton was amoral and did many unethical things.  He was intelligent or cunning enough not to get caught in a significant manner.  Bad person, sure.  But unfortunately, he's been the best President we've had within my lifetime recollection (I'm 29).  Yes, it is painful to say that.  It's not even a remote endorsement of him, it's a comment on the competition.

Rooster is correct.

Unless you're trying to say he's better than Reagan, I fixed that for you.

[longeyes]

He's a definitely wobbly on illegal immigration, and that alone is enough for me not to support him.

The $500K line of credit at Tiffany's?  Illegal?  No.  Immoral?  No.  But for some of us it says volumes about his taste in women, and a man's taste in women says a lot about who is he, what he'll become, and what he'll do "for love."  I'd say it's not unrelated to his well-known behavior with his cancer-stricken wife.

[TommyGunn]

If he was given special financial consideration (say significantly lower rate), it could be unreported conflict of interest.  That can have legal implications. 


I honestly don't get folks' support for Newt.  Normally, I'm not one to judge folks' personal life.  But the guy does have a repeated documented history of significantly amoral behavior.  Do you really think he will be any ethical or moral in his political dealings than his private ones?   Even that I could overlook.  Honestly, I could.  Personal should be personal, public should be public.  Except...  if he's dumb enough to be CAUGHT that many times screwing up, is he worthy of office?  Clinton was amoral and did many unethical things.  He was intelligent or cunning enough not to get caught in a significant manner.   Bad person, sure.  But unfortunately, he's been the best President we've had within my lifetime (I'm 29).  Yes, it is painful to say that.  It's not even a remote endorsement of him, it's a comment on the competition.

Rooster is correct.

Well .....except for that pesky little impeachment thing.  Lying under oath ain't jaywalkin'.
As for " .... the best President we've had within my lifetime (I'm 29)"     Really?   Really?   REALLY?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

if he got that interest rate it for darn sure was illegal and both he and wifey shoulda known it

[RevDisk]

Unless you're trying to say he's better than Reagan, I fixed that for you.

oops, good catch.  Sorry about that.  I was 8 when he left office. 

Well .....except for that pesky little impeachment thing.  Lying under oath ain't jaywalkin'.
As for " .... the best President we've had within my lifetime (I'm 29)"     Really?   Really?   REALLY?

Uhm.  He was found not guilty by the Senate.  So, officially and legally, he did not lie under oath.  Did he?  Probably.  I will note the irony for this thread.  Newt was doing exactly what he was accusing Clinton of doing, while he was making the accusations.  In my opinion, that makes him a morally worse man than Clinton. 

Don't get me wrong.  Clinton was a complete scumbag politician.  He was however not a stupid complete scumbag politician.  The Presidents since Clinton have been significantly worse in civil liberties, financial prudence, expansion of government, etc.  I am NOT saying Clinton was good.  Not remotely.  I'm saying his competition is worse.  When the Nazis protest the Communists, you do not pick a side.  You pray for a kinetic strike from the Gods with a twenty kilo chunk of carbonaceous chondrite.

His major lasting piece of legislation was the AWB, while completely unconstitutional, was functionally insignificant in practice.  It only provided market distortion for a step above cosmetic features.  Yea, he did let the BATFE off the leash and they burned a bunch of Texans.  Notice, now the BATFE can't even get a director.  They're getting curb stomped by Congress at every opportunity.  Personally, I'd prefer their dissolution and imprisonment of any BATFE employees that violated US law. 

I realize you're probably not a Dem.  I am.  I doubt you care much about internal politics of the Dem party either, which is fine. Clinton is the reason why the Dems outside of People's Republic states will not touch gun control with a twenty foot pole.  He admitted the AWB was a really stupid idea that did nothing but lose a metric ton of votes/cash.  Since then, every smart Dem Congresscritter outside of the People's Republics of California, New Jersey, MA, New York, etc has either STFU on the 2A or found Jesus, so to speak.  Reid is kinda a perfect example.  Another complete scumbag politician, I will grant.  And one of the best defenders of the Second Amendment.  (Yes, I'm sure that hurts one's brain.)

[makattak]

oops, good catch.  Sorry about that.  I was 8 when he left office.  

Yeah, I was 10 and I, unfortunately as well, have no recollection of the best President of my lifetime.  

[TommyGunn]

 

Well .....except for that pesky little impeachment thing.  Lying under oath ain't jaywalkin'.
As for " .... the best President we've had within my lifetime (I'm 29)"     Really?   Really?   REALLY?

Uhm.  He was found not guilty by the Senate.  So, officially and legally, he did not lie under oath.  Did he?  Probably.  I will note the irony for this thread. 

Officially and legally he was disbarred by a judge for lying under oath.  He was impeached in the house. That is the "guilty" verdict. The senate decided he wasn't going to be removed (the punishment phase).  That was simple politics.  Demos "circling the wagons" around their "liar-in chief."  You might want to find out just what judge removed him from the bar; there's a bit of irony there if you appreciate that sort of thing. 

I realize you're probably not a Dem.  I am.  I doubt you care much about internal politics of the Dem party either, which is fine. Clinton is the reason why the Dems outside of People's Republic states will not touch gun control with a twenty foot pole.  He admitted the AWB was a really stupid idea that did nothing but lose a metric ton of votes/cash.  Since then, every smart Dem Congresscritter outside of the People's Republics of California, New Jersey, MA, New York, etc has either STFU on the 2A or found Jesus, so to speak.

As strange as this may sound, I have in the past voted for democrats.  A former governor of the state I live in, Fob James, was a good-hearted conservative republican .... except for the fact that he stuck his foot in his mouth once too often for my tastes.  So at the next election I voted for a guy named Siegelman.  A Dem.  Not a raving loony leftie like Nancy Pelosi, that Wiener guy from The Naked City, (who tweets his "nakedness" to girls half his age) or what's-her-name from San Francisco who co authored the assault weapon ban.  Well, Siegelman is.... guess what? ? ?.... serving a prison sentence.  Ooooooops.   Oh well....
JFK was actually a fairly decent democrat .... except for his womanizing and the issue with the female Soviet Spy which could have blown him out of the White House if the press had done their job.  But he wasn't a raving loony-leftie.
So many dems are now it stinks.  And too many republicans are "RINOs" it STINKS.
My allegiance is to the Republican party.  That is only true to the degree they remain conservative and don't go "RINO" on me.  There ain't a snowball's chance in the down under that I will vote for Obama because he is the worst of the worst the Demos have to offer; however I can see myself very possibly abstaining from any vote if the "stupid" party sticks a RINO up for nomination or does something equally dumb.  I might vote libertarian or other third party if there's a decent guy there but that's basically a "throw-away" vote based solely and ONLY on conscience, as it won't prove a thing.

[Perd Hapley]

Tommy,

You may wish to consult the Const.  An impeachment is actually not a conviction.

[Gowen]

Tommy,

You may wish to consult the Const.  An impeachment is actually not a conviction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

I disagree, he was convicted.  The Senate did not throw him out of office.

[makattak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

I disagree, he was convicted.  The Senate did not throw him out of office.

I'm with Fistful and Rev here. He was impeached, not convicted. My opinion on whether he should have been convicted likely differs from Rev, but, on the plus side, we never got a President Gore as a result.

[Perd Hapley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

I disagree, he was convicted.  The Senate did not throw him out of office.

There isn't any disagreeing about this. Even the article you cited says you're wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#Process


Also, read the U.S. Constitution, or read what Wiki has to say about the Clinton impeachment.

[roo_ster]

I'm with Fistful and Rev here. He was impeached, not convicted. My opinion on whether he should have been convicted likely differs from Rev, but, on the plus side, we never got a President Gore as a result.

Thank the Lord for small favors.

[Jamisjockey]

  Poor ol' Newtie .......  Gawd forbid anyone should have an account at Tiffany's. 
I feel so sorry for him. 
He has other problems.  This is silly.

QFT.  If I had his money, my wife would probably have a charge account at Tiffany's too.
This is stupid.

Where's that clip of Newt and Pelosi on the damn couch again?  

[TommyGunn]

Tommy,

You may wish to consult the Const.  An impeachment is actually not a conviction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

I disagree, he was convicted.  The Senate did not throw him out of office.

Unfortunatly while I appreciate Gowen's support, turns out Fistful was right.  The Senate actually does the "conviction" part.   Nevertheless I maintain that the Senate decided the Clinton Impeachment by political stripe, rather than by the facts as determined in the house impeachment procedure.  They, in otherwords, did an "O. J."  
As fistful said the impeachment is not conviction, it is essentially an "accusation."
This is something I picked up on during the Clinton impeachment, but eleven years later memory paid a dirty rotten trick on me.    Or, as Homer Simpson might put it; "D'OH!!!!"

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

so a republican and his wife having a zero interest acct from a company with legislation pending is not an issue?  even when typical interest is 21%?  how come?

[TommyGunn]

Well, I guess because we don't care, because so many evil dems "get away" with cr@p like this (and worse) that we're gonna give ol' Newtie a pass.  After all I am gonna do that at the polls so I might as well remain somewhat consistant here.
Or maybe it's because ol' Newtie is not going to be the next president.
I suppose some of us could be doing it merely to annoy you.   But not me, I'd never do such an evil thing.

[longeyes]

The Tiffany issue matters because on a gut level it says "I'm not one of you peons.  We're nobility."  It doesn't matter whether he indulges his wife, it matters whether the perception is that he places that indulgence above the higher virtues required for public service.