The Newster promises Palin an appt; TITLE 18>PART 1> ~599

[TM7]

Newt Gingrich Promises Palin a Presidential Appointment and Commits a FelonyTags:

• POLITICS/ELECTIONS/CORRUPTION

Clearly Gingrich is sending the message to all the other top-level GOP celebrities, that no matter how unqualified you are, that if you are willing to help him win the South Carolina primary, you too will be rewarded with a presidential appointment.
Johnny, tell our candidate what that promise earns him. Well, Newt for that clear violation of 18 U.S.C. § 599 you've earned yourself two years in jail (unless the violation was unintentional, in which case it's only a single year in jail).
    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 599
    § 599. Promise of appointment by candidate
.
.Carry on Newt World Order....TM7
.
 
 

[SwampThing762]

TM7,

The Daily Kos is hardly a credible source.     Certainly, you can do better for sources.

ST762

[Graybeard]

Total complete BS as usual. Listen to what he said. He did NOT make her an offer and clearly said he has not had any discussions with her. There are plenty of reasons not to support Newt without having to make up such BS about him.

[Casull]

..Not too far fetched if you read the law....here's what Newt said:
...I was honored and delighted last night when she said if she were in South Carolina, she’d vote for Newt Gingrich....
...I would ask her to consider taking a major role in the next administration if I’m president...
 
That's an indirect offer.

 
 
Pretty damned far fetched if you understand the law.   First, it appears that the support was given prior to Newt's statement.  Second, his statement appears to be conditional.  There is NOTHING here that would support the claim in the OP. 

[Graybeard]

NO he did NOT. Is English really your first language? Like so many of your posts you're reading your weird ideas into what other people say.

[Sourdough]

GB:  He uses a differant English than we do.  We all read and understand, except him.  Most of us ignore or take this guy with a grain of salt anyway.  I ignore him, he can not give a meaningful post to the conversation.

Now, I will say who ever beats Obama would not do bad to give Sarah Palin a position as a department head.  She is a good manager.  And she knows energy.  Sarah was on a State Energy Task Force after being mayor.  The Murkowski administration put her on this Task Force to keep her out of the way.  As Mayor she had fired many corrupt and non-producing town employees.  Pressure was being brought to bear on the corrupt Alaskan Republican Party.  So they buried her off in the corner, where she had no way of getting in the way.  Sarah noted the corruption between the oil company VECO and our State Legislators.  She was in a position to see it.  But when she brought it up to higher ups they ignored her, saying she is just a pretty face, with a do nothing job.  That is when she decided to do something.  She started the ball rolling with an investigation of certain Legislators.  They were convected.  Word got out she was behind it, and she put her name in the hat for Governor.  She blew Murkowski out of the water in the primary.  So whom ever get in office, they would be well off giving her a position and using her talents.

Sarah's problem was that the enemies she had made in Wasilla came back to haunt her.  They used the states ethics law against her, and forced her out of office.

[Casull]

So, dismiss it as trivia if you like

 
 
I dismiss it as false.  One CANNOT offer something in exchange for something that has ALREADY been given.  That is NOT an "indirect offer".

[nomosendero]

So, dismiss it as trivia if you like

 
 
I dismiss it as false.  One CANNOT offer something in exchange for something that has ALREADY been given.  That is NOT an "indirect offer".

.
Read the Law, read what he said, and figure when she supported Newt.....Newster said he would reward her for her support and more support in essence...thats what he said....Now watch the others,,,,they will likely do the same thing, but the Code is quite clear...imo.
 
..TM7

He indirectly said it & He's sticking to it. Oh really?     
 
Maybe he offered her dinner or some other "reward"  As usual, silly stuff, but we know the law, even if their's no application here. 

[bilmac]

I suspect that a lot of candidates would like to have her in their cabinets. I doubt that she would take any appointment. Who would want to leave a comfortable life in Alaska and go to Wachington DC.

[powderman]

So, dismiss it as trivia if you like

 
 
I dismiss it as false.  One CANNOT offer something in exchange for something that has ALREADY been given.  That is NOT an "indirect offer".

 
CASULL. Agreed Sir. I tried looking up newster, is it plant, vegetable, or mineral?? Had this thread been on my email, spam would have caught it. POWDERMAN. 

[OldSchoolRanger]

The law exists, Mr. Gingrich certainly exists, the Newster?, maybe in the recesses of your mind.

Your claim about:

Newt Gingrich Promises Palin a Presidential Appointment and Commits a Felony

Clearly Gingrich is sending the message to all the other top-level GOP celebrities, that no matter how unqualified you are, that if you are willing to help him win the South Carolina primary, you too will be rewarded with a presidential appointment.
Johnny, tell our candidate what that promise earns him. Well, Newt for that clear violation of 18 U.S.C. § 599 you've earned yourself two years in jail (unless the violation was unintentional, in which case it's only a single year in jail).
    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 599
    § 599. Promise of appointment by candidate

Is most definitely is not true, and your interpretation of what was said, and it's meaning, is as usual completely wrong.

[Casull]

You're entitled to your thoughts, but alot of folks think the Newt wandered over the line on this one.

 
 
Well, based upon the responses, it appears that your definition of "alot of folks" is essentially one person.   

[Dixie Dude]

Palin might be good in the department of Interior also. 

[Casull]

I don't know what "RTBA guys" are, but I know I've only heard, here or elsewhere, ONE guy claim that Newt broke that law.

[OldSchoolRanger]

The law exists, Mr. Gingrich certainly exists, the Newster?, maybe in the recesses of your mind.

Your claim about:

Newt Gingrich Promises Palin a Presidential Appointment and Commits a Felony

Clearly Gingrich is sending the message to all the other top-level GOP celebrities, that no matter how unqualified you are, that if you are willing to help him win the South Carolina primary, you too will be rewarded with a presidential appointment.
Johnny, tell our candidate what that promise earns him. Well, Newt for that clear violation of 18 U.S.C. § 599 you've earned yourself two years in jail (unless the violation was unintentional, in which case it's only a single year in jail).
    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 599
    § 599. Promise of appointment by candidate

Is most definitely is not true, and your interpretation of what was said, and it's meaning, is as usual completely wrong.

.
You're entitled to your thoughts, but alot of folks think the Newt wandered over the line on this one. The Law is quite clear and the reason for it is clear.  The Newstonian Physics model says laws are for everybody else and little people  to follow, but the Newster is above and follows his own laws....that's the point of this thread.
..TM7

The Physics model you quoted doesn't exist, however a model called the "Liberal Blame Game Theory" does.  It applies whenever a liberal politician is caught doing something illegal.

[OldSchoolRanger]

You're entitled to your thoughts, but alot of folks think the Newt wandered over the line on this one.

 
 
Well, based upon the responses, it appears that your definition of "alot of folks" is essentially one person.   

.
Yes, here among RTBA guys there is a laxity in holding there politicians to a strict rules and regulations...especially their favorites...Don't ask me to expalin that. But yes outside in the greater universe alot of people notices the Newster stepped over the line regarding this Code...but that's how he thinks..laws are for other people...not him.
 
 
..TM7
.

Time for a little clarification, definitions, and abbreviations to be explained:

"alot of folks" - is TM7 (one person).

"RTBA guys" - RTBA = Right To Bear Arms guys, which consists of most people on this site.

"outside in the greater universe" - TM means the real world, or at least his vision of it.

"Newster" - TM's pet name for Mr Newt Gingrich.

The sources for TM's claim about Mr. Gingrich committing a felony is: WhatREALLYHappened.com and the "The Daily Kos"

"stepped over the line regarding this Code" - in TM's parlance means he feels that Mr Newt Gingrich
committed a felony (violation of:TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 599 § 599. Promise of appointment by candidate) by offering a job to Mrs. Palin in return for political support.

Now back to the discussion.

[OldSchoolRanger]

...Ummmm, Right To Bear Arms....RTBA---like the guys here at GB's.. - So your saying us RTBA guys like the guys here at GB's are lax if we don't agree with your nonsensical interpretation of a sentence?
Its how The Newster rolls--he thinks he's above law....that's why he was censured in Congress by his own Party,,a first ever event.!! Was a pot smoker than decided to promote death penalty for possession of 2 ounces,,,his pot smoking was of a higher nature..    Sorta like this guy? "When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again." –Bill Clinton
The guy is a con....that's why OSR is a supporter... So your saying I'm a con?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OSR...more personal ridicule I see and inability to stay on topic, and now you're bringing conversation from other forums and threads here and out of context, big chip on OSR's shoulder I see..... Fact is you of all persons, a LEO sworn to uphold the Law allegedly, have a problem understanding simple Law or the application thereof. No other candidates at this time have wandered over the line concerning this crucial law. Various sites and persons have commented  about Newt's laxity; not from the RNC mind you, but plenty of people have taken notice of this violation. We know America is in trouble when those employeed and sworn to uphold the Law don't give a crap..!  I'm sure the beloved  RNC told Newster to watch his mouth again on this issue.
.
...TM7

TiMee - Sorry you feel that way, but where did I ridicule you, on this thread?  Would you be kind enough to point it out for me?
   I do believe I am staying on topic, the topic which is your allegation that Mr. Gingrich committed a felony, by offering an appointment to Mrs. Palin in exchange for political support.
   As far as conversation from other forums and threads, I don't believe it happened, would you be kind enough to point it out to me. But an important part of discussion is, that if you claim something about a certain subject, you have to back it up.  You can't go on making false claims and expect us to believe them, so if you post something about a particular subject, I should be able to, and will use a statement posted by you to disprove your new statement or point of view.  It's only common sense.
   I can assure you, I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I just don't like people making statements that aren't true, especially when they claim knowledge or qualifications that they don't have or are not entitled to. 
   I do believe I have a greater understanding of the law than you, and it is my contention that your interpretation of:  TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 599, is completely wrong.  If you don't believe me, you can always pay an attorney, to tell you that your wrong.  Those of us who have been, or are currently involved in law or law enforcement, do "give a crap" (your words), but we don't believe in bending the law, or misinterpreting it,  like you to suit our purposes. 

[OldSchoolRanger]

Now we see the Newster again playing fast and footloose with an indirect off to the most dangerous nutter in the US of A, John Bolton....
 
No other candidates are operating like the Newt in this area....shows his repect for our laws, and his opinion of himslef,  as he he flirts with legalities.
 
...TM7

TM - Let's see the proof of your claim regarding the: "indirect off"[sic], BTW, can I safely assume this means an; indirect offer?

"flirts with legalities" is the same as looking and smelling roses, without buying.

[Casull]

Don't worry OSR.  Newt is safe.  Newt only committed this crime in tm's mind.

[Casull]

LOL.  Under your interpretation, the naming of a vice presidential running mate could be seen as a violation.

[Cuts Crooked]

[quote author=OldSchoolRanger link=topic=249842.msg1099459705#msg1099459705

"flirts with legalities" is the same as looking and smelling roses, without buying.


Hmmmm?? Donno 'bout y'all but when I wuz a bit younger, Flirtin' wuz a prelude to sumpthin else!

[OldSchoolRanger]

[quote author=OldSchoolRanger link=topic=249842.msg1099459705#msg1099459705

"flirts with legalities" is the same as looking and smelling roses, without buying.


Hmmmm?? Donno 'bout y'all but when I wuz a bit younger, Flirtin' wuz a prelude to sumpthin else!

Cuts - That may be true, but flirtin' didn't always lead to something else did it?

[OldSchoolRanger]

OSR,,,
Defendant's Background record: Newt has a history of ethical violations, he was censored as speaker by his own Party for ethical and personal violations. His personal life is rife with ethical and moral picadilloes. He may be implicated in fraud and conflict of interests cases, and He has admitted to such indiscretions and  paid fines for such. ...
.Other factors:  Ms Palin had not declared support for any candidate, and in fact had leaned toward supporting RP.  The CNN news video displays an indirect promise by Gingrichto place her in his adminsistartion. No other candiate has flaunted or come close to violating the spirit and letter of Code 599, except Newt Gingrich. The American people wrote the Code for the express purpose of preventing candidates from making promises to garner support from either the promisee or the greater public. A promisor, who makes a promise or assurance to appoint to his adminsistartion, to garner public support or the promisee's support, is therefore in violation of TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 599. This Code is current an active regulation for the purpose of ensuring fair elections in the USA. The spirit and letter of the law are clear an unambiguous. Enough substance exists displaying that Newt Gingrich appears (and now possiblely again with the John Bolton case) to have violated Code 599 and a board of inquiry, Court,  should convene to further determine the application of the Law on behalf of the American people and to ensure properly run elections.

..TM7

TM - The operating word here believe it or not, is may, not will be, was, or is.  This is, after all the U.S.A., not a foreign country, and as I pointed out previously in other threads, here you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 
 
 What I don't understand is how you understand this principal, when it pertains to liberals, muslims, and other people who profess to want to do harm to the US, and yet are completely against this idea when it applies to Republicans, the military, and law enforcement personnel.
 
 BTW, If I may ask, the part titled: "Other factors" (underlined section),  who's interpretation of the law and facts are these?  Yours?

[OldSchoolRanger]

OSR,,, your stumbling with the English language aside; people can research Newt for themselves,,,including a Grand Jury.....prosectors can research his history of fraud and collusion and include in his rap sheet, as I think there is enough basis to conduct such an investigation....And so I suggest at the most we have some sound basis for a Court to look into Newt's violation of this Code and campaign shenagins; and at the least we have indications about how Newt rolls. Really very simple....
 
..TM7

TM - 

My, my!  My "stumbling with the English language aside"? 
Just so you know, I am just questioning your comment.  If my writings are "stumbling with the English language", would you care to explain these words of yours?  What dialect/or language were they written in?
strickly [sic], employeed [sic], repect [sic], himslef [sic], indirect off [], prosectors [sic],
shenagins [sic],

If it was really that simple, why are you still alleging illegal or felonious behavior when it didn't occur?

Other factors:  Ms Palin had not declared support for any candidate, and in fact had leaned toward supporting RP.  The CNN news video displays an indirect promise by Gingrichto place her in his adminsistartion. No other candiate has flaunted or come close to violating the spirit and letter of Code 599, except Newt Gingrich. The American people wrote the Code for the express purpose of preventing candidates from making promises to garner support from either the promisee or the greater public. A promisor, who makes a promise or assurance to appoint to his adminsistartion, to garner public support or the promisee's support, is therefore in violation of TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 599. This Code is current an active regulation for the purpose of ensuring fair elections in the USA. The spirit and letter of the law are clear an unambiguous. Enough substance exists displaying that Newt Gingrich appears (and now possiblely again with the John Bolton case) to have violated Code 599 and a board of inquiry, Court,  should convene to further determine the application of the Law on behalf of the American people and to ensure properly run elections.

..TM7

I see you still avoided answering my question.  Whose interpretation of the law and facts are these?  Yours?  Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions.

[OldSchoolRanger]

If you have a problem with my spelling, you are free to troll along behind me and pick up on those..thanx...But if your sole purpose is to sow ambiguity, because of tightness of shorts issue,  you are and will be known as a one dance dog and pony show...
Here we're talking about how your guy Newt rolls, and now the thread is about how OSR rolls..... and it is quite sad.
 
..TM7

TM - I have no problem at all with your spelling, I was just responding to your statement:

OSR,,, your stumbling with the English language aside; .... Really very simple....
..TM7

TM - Let's not play the role of a victim here.  I did not bring up any thing about your stumbling English language ability or, typing, but since you wanted to bring it up, I decided to hi-light your spelling expertise.  If you don't want rocks thrown in your direction, please play nice.

Your insinuations, personal attacks, and childish insults are not a problem for me.  My one dance dog and pony show at least is based on fact, much more so than what you supposedly submit as evidence to buttress your points of contention.  Unfortunately for you, the OP, you started is a claim that  Newt Gingrich is in fact in violation of the law.
Everything else, you brought up.  I just respond to your false allegations.  For the record, Mr. Gingrich is not my candidate of choice, but I won't have you lie about his supposed felonious conduct.  Again, I state, if you don't have proof of a crime, you don't have a crime.  Your stretching of the truth wouldn't cut it in a court of law. 
I see you still avoided answering my question.  Whose interpretation of the law and facts are these?  Yours?
I see that you still haven't taken my advice on how to resolve this question.  Speak to an attorney about it for legal advice.
Thanks again for taking the time to duck my questions.

[Casull]

Here in this thread, we had the simple premise that Newt violated the Code 599

 
 
There was no "we" to this.  You were the ONLY one here that believed that Newt violated this law.  Everyone else was able to comprehend the language of the code section and clearly saw that there was no violation.  At this point, you might as well just give it a rest.

[OldSchoolRanger]

Ridiculous self -indulgent dribble..You turn every issue or discussion you don't approve of, or don't want discussed cogently, into a one man personal attack fusillade....Like a pitbull latched on to a leg, and acting as self appointed censure bureau you try to block, corrupt, pre-empt, and poison critical thinking. This is obvious obfuscation at its worst, AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS WRONG WITH AMERICA TODAY. .....egotist and idealogues destroying free flow of ideas and progress for their own selfish purposes.
..TM7

 TM - That's really nice, accusing me of posting "Ridiculous self -indulgent dribble.." ?  Sorry, no response needed from me on that one.  Thanks for the compliment: "Like a pitbull latched on to a leg,".  No obfuscation on my part, I just want facts, true facts, real facts, something you seem to have a problem comprehending, not alleged facts, not your interpretation of facts. 
 Did I tell you that Det. Joe Friday was a hero of mine growing up?
 Your comment; "egotist and idealogues destroying free flow of ideas and progress for their own selfish purposes.", I believe best describes  .
 
 

Here in this thread, we had the simple premise that Newt violated the Code 599, a propostion presented by hundreds of blogs and news services across the Nation.....and so perhaps something to be considered, and as a warning to citizens and polticians alike. Instead of debating or presenting your thesis you employed the cheap tactics of an obfuscator, namely personal attacks and ad hominens--hardly addressing the topic at hand.  This is obvious obfuscation at its worst, AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS WRONG WITH AMERICA TODAY. .....egotist and idealogues destroying free flow of ideas and progress for their own selfous purposes and to promote false mythologies..  Use of such tactics and the unholy ever-present 'conspiracy' encrypting certify one thing---that the obfuscator lacks the intelligent capability to cogently discuss topics in the first place.
 .
 Have a nice day...!
 ..TM7
 

TM - Actually on this thread, that wasn't the premise, your premise was that Mr. Gingrich committed a felony, I happened to disagree. 
I do agree with Casull on this one, there is no "we", or as Tonto said "what do you mean "we" Kemo-Sabe?".  It was just "you", and to be quite honest, you couldn't prove your point.
 
 Thank you for your pleasant closing, you have a nice day too!

[Casull]

noteworthy that most GB members give him a pass on it, or either don't consider  Law 599 being too important....and these people call themselves conservatives... 

 
 
Not trolling.  I didn't see any GB member "give him a pass".  I didn't see any GB member give any indication that they thought the code section was not "too important".  It appears that all (with one exception) saw NO violation.     

[OldSchoolRanger]

Yeah, those people looking at this thread dismissed the possibility of Newt flirting with the legality of Code 599, ....  I, on the other hand, thought the topic was rather important.... others who wanted to defend Newt did so by the usual goading and SOP trolling tactics; for example, feigning problems understanding the English language and definitons.....
.....TM7

If your so sure, and passionate about this.  Try speaking to an attorney, he most likely won't have "problems understanding the English language and definitons....." , and I'm sure he will correct your misunderstandings.

No "goading and SOP trolling tactics" here, just trying to make you better informed as to the correct interpretation of the law.  Who better to seek advice from than a person trained in the law.

[OldSchoolRanger]

I did speak to an attorney about this. He said in today's climate unlikely anybody would touch it for a number of reasons.. , but as a matter of Law it could possibly warrant more information gathering for the charge to stick. In relation to the time period they wrote that Code 599 it might have stuck, but we live in a different framework know.  I came up with Aristotle's quote and we both agreed rather poignant considering the state of affairs in 2012 America. Hey, who care's about apathy anyway,,,, right? ...

...TM7

TM - So your attorney said: "as a matter of Law it could possibly warrant{s} more information gathering for the charge to stick".  This is exactly what my point was.  There was no crime committed based on the information you originally posted.

Even with your stating: "in today's climate unlikely anybody would touch it for a number of reasons.." and by using "today's climate" and not listing the reasons, thereby avoiding the original question as to the validity of your claim.  I will accept your acknowledgement that there was an error made in your interpretation of the law.

Thank you for your honesty.  Peace!