 |
|
| Email this article | Printer friendly page |
| For Immediate Release | |
| Aug 24, 1998 | Contact: Press Office 202-646-5172 |
|
'Too conflicted to lead impeachment inquiry' Today, The Washington Post reports that Newt Gingrich has called on Ken Starr to deliver his report on all investigated matters, because there must be a significant pattern of felonious conduct, not just one incident, before impeachment will be considered. Thus, the Speaker has significantly raised the bar on impeachment. Why, at the "moment of truth," does Gingrich continue to frustrate House inquiries into Clinton's conduct? First, in January 1997, Gingrich, in effectively pleading guilty to ethics violations for misusing non-profit monies and lying to Congress about his acts, admitted that he had brought "discredit" on the House. This is the standard for impeachment of a Speaker, and a President. Thus Gingrich cannot now support Clinton's impeachment for similar reasons. The Speaker paid a whopping $300,000 fine for his actions, to reimburse the American people for an investigation prolonged because of his providing false information to investigators -- a similar situation to the one Clinton finds himself in today. Second, Clinton allies, including James Carville and others, have been gathering derogatory information about Gingrich, and have threatened to use it if he allows the House to proceed with a meaningful impeachment inquiry. Salon Magazine, the Administration's mouthpiece, has announced that Gingrich's head will be among the first to roll, in what has been described as an Ellen Rometsch strategy -- implying that the Speaker's FBI file has also been accessed. Third, based on the experience of the last 2 years, it is clear that every time Clinton's conduct is debated in the House Judiciary Committee -- the body to initially conduct the impeachment inquiry -- that the President's actions will be, at a minimum, analogized to Gingrich's, by the likes of John Conyers, the ranking minority head. As Gingrich harbors ambitions to run for President in 2000 or beyond, this would effectively kill his chances. Over the last 2 years, it is no secret that the Speaker has killed or watered down every major House investigation into the alleged illegalities in the Clinton Administration, fearing that his own predicament will be pursued in retaliation. Democrats have made it clear that the tax ramifications of Gingrich's non-profit plea bargain, could also be explored further. In the words of Republican Congressman Peter King, Gingrich has been the equivalent of "political road kill." "For the good of the American people, given his latest retreat on ethics, the time has now come for Gingrich to step down as Speaker. He is too conflicted to lead the House during an impeachment inquiry," stated Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman. Judicial Watch first called for his resignation in January 1997. |
|
