New Jersey Governor Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christie appeared on Meet The Press Sunday as Romney’s surrogate to continue the attacks on Gingrich. There’s something unseemly about Romney’s continuing strategy to keep his own hands clean while sending out his attack pitbull to do his dirty work. Caption Credit: The Mark Levin Show | Image Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images via The Mark Levin Show
By: Edmund Jenks – West Coast Editor
On Monday’s Mark Levin Show this week (January 23, 2012), Mark Levin took to task comments made by New Jersey Governor Chris Cristie while on “Meet The Press” when he was on the campaign stomp on behalf of Mitt Romney. Chris Christie was running his mouth about Newt Gingrich, saying that Newt has embarrassed the Republican Party with his ethics charges that were brought in Congress by Democrat Congressman David Bonior.
Mark challenges Christie to review each of the charges, point by point, and their outcome as a student of the process just as Mark did at the time the charges were actually brought because Mark Levin was a senior attorney at the Landmark Legal Foundation and performed the investigation.
Mark asserts that Gov. Christie can’t backup his complaints about Newt regarding the ethics violations, and that he is just repeating false liberal talking points.
Byron York also weighed in on the issue of the ethics process unleashed on the then Speaker of the House of Representatives:
Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it’s worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997.
The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich’s former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich’s ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand.
It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses.
Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong.
After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.
[Reference Here]
This balance in perspective, delivered by people who were actually involved in the process during Newt Gingrich’s ethics investigation in the second half of the 1990′s and its end, is important to have before the last debate (tonight) before going on to vote in the Florida Primary.
