JIM LEHRER: Now, explain the $300,000. As I understand, the $300,000 is intended to make up some of the cost of this investigation, is that right.
NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Democrats are calling it a fine. Mr. Cole called it a reimbursement for the cost. And the idea here is that Speaker Gingrich on two separate occasions in letters, one that he--was drafted by his lawyer but he signed and knew and read beforehand, another that was signed by his lawyer but which he approved--stated flatly that GOPAC is not involved in the tax aspects of this. That was false. And they had to go through apparently several more weeks of investigation to rectify all of that. And the idea here is that having made a statement that was not accurate, he will reimburse the committee for all the extra costs that Congress had to incur to make up for that inaccuracy.
JIM LEHRER: All right, Paul. Norm says this may be the equivalent of involuntary manslaughter, is that what you're saying?
PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: I think Norm said that that was Jim Cole's--
JIM LEHRER: Right.
PAUL GIGOT: --view of it. Cole did not use those words. Cole was tough. Cole was very tough. And I think Norm is right about the essential facts. The interesting thing that came out today was the--not that there was a plea bargain but the sanctions involved, and that, in fact, the two Democrats and the two Republicans on the subcommittee had both agreed to the reprimand back in December. And what that meant was once that deal was struck, the other members of the committee probably understood at the same time that that meant that Newt Gingrich would keep--be able to keep the speakership, if he could get his own party to vote for him. That explains--
JIM LEHRER: To support the agreement, you mean?
PAUL GIGOT: That's right. Once the agreement was struck Gingrich basically made the decision I can agree to this, and it's going to be a very rough time, but I'll probably keep the speakership. What we learned today was that that essential nature of that sanction which was short of censure and so he could keep the speakership explains an awful lot of the partisan mayhem in-between then and now because the people who wanted Gingrich gone, some of the Democrats, knew that with two Democrats on the subcommittee endorsing something short of censure, they were not and probably not going to be able to do that. And so they really raised the rhetorical ante.
The Republicans came back, and you had a real nasty fight, but it looks to me now as if we'll have some more rough times, but essentially the subcommittee has--the committee has put things together, back together in a bipartisan basis, and while it's a very tough penalty on Newt Gingrich, it looks like he'll keep the speakership.
JIM LEHRER: Humpty Dumpty back together again?
......................................................
Now some ppl might ask....
well why was Newt fined the 300 K >?
Answer - He lied to Congress :facepalm:
opcorn2
