Pelosi??

Everyone knows that dirty politics is the name of the game. The question is not whether Pelosi engaged in dirty politics or not but whether Pelosi crossed the line by threatening to release documents that were never intended to be released. It matters not at all if "Gingrich has something to hide." If nothing else, that's a serious breach of ethics, even if it skirts the boundary of legal behavior.

 

Releasing anything from the investigations absolutely crosses the line (or any "confidential" information) and without question violates the congressional ethics and regulations. And to everyone's ears (except these two) including Pelosi's who is now try to walk it all back, that is exactly what she threatened to do.

 

Sorry HM. I like and respect you and your opinions but public record should be just that shouldn't it? As in available to the public?

I am reminded of a situation years ago. I was involved with research on a particular engraving error on $1 U.S. Federal Reserve notes. One of the researches jumped through a lot of hoops to gain access to what was "public record". Certainly seemed it was something that was not intended to be released but he dug it up and released it. Would that make him unethical?
He gained information legally and shared it. Seems like dedicated research to me.

What "rule" of politics did Pelosi cross? She just plain said it and that came off as a "threat". Then she carried off the "threat".

You started off with "Everyone knows that dirty politics is the name of the game" then later mention "that's a serious breach of ethics, even if it skirts the boundary of legal behavior."

First there is the question of politics seriously being tied into ethics. Politics and ethics are not two words I use in conjunction these days.
Second is how did she skirt the boundary of legal behavior?

She said she might release some information then did so. It was information that is on public record. How does this skirt the boundary of legal behavior?

Now granted it was much easier for Nancy Pelosi to dig up this information than the average person. She was there after all. She, and her staff I'm sure, knew exactly where to look.
Does anyone think that other politicians aren't doing the same? I'm pretty sure they are and it's just a matter of timing.

Finally.

If these were documents that were never intended to be released why are they on public record?
The answer is simple. They SHOULD be.

I'm not just talking Newt here. I'm talking ALL of the politicians and what goes on. As Americans we deserve access. Our future is at stake here.

 

How is public record confidential?

See my last post for more.

 

That is just it - it is not public record. Releasing "public records" is not a threat, but done every day. What she threatened to release is what has not been published, but what was discussed in private ("I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year.") Releasing that info is absolutely and positively against House ethics and admittedly (by Pelosi) so. And, no, she has not yet "Then she carried off the "threat".

 

Happier days? This will certainly doom his election chances with the flat earth crowd.

 

Sounds similar to Hillary Clintons bona fides when she originally announced her bid to be Prez, doesn't it?

 

So the best defense you can raise for Pelosi is that she was once seen with Newt? How cute!

 

I still haven't seen anything that needs to be defended yet and we are now 3 pages into this non-topic. Pelosi at no point said that she would release anything that wasn't already public information. She clarified that in a follow-up statement, so where is any defense needed? Still confused about why she either needs a defense for this or the half-quote the Right-wing can't seem to stop bastardizing for political purposes. Oh well, I guess I'll never understand stupid.

 

seemed clever at the time. Perhaps a few drinks would improve it.