[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E723-E725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              THE NATIONAL REVIEW--HOME OF THE BIG WHOPPER

                                 ______


                        HON. PATRICIA SCHROEDER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 28, 1995
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, one of our colleagues sent around a Dear 
Colleague today enclosing ``Mud Path,'' an article by Washington 
attorney George Tobin, published in the April 3, 1995, National Review. 
This article purports to critique the ethics charges lodged against 
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
  Steve Jost, who has assisted former Representative Ben Jones in 
filing some of the ethics charges, spoke with Mr. Tobin after his 
article appeared. Mr. Tobin admitted he had not read the complaints 
filed against Mr. Gingrich, but instead had relied on ``summaries of 
the articles provided to me'' from people ``I'm not at liberty to 
disclose.''
  This will give you some idea of the level of scholarship involved in 
preparing Mr. Tobin's article. He hadn't even bothered to read the 
complaints he was allegedly critiquing.
  Mr. Jost subsequently submitted to the National Review a letter 
critiquing Mr. Tobin's critique. In short, Mr. Jost found that Mr. 
Tobin had told enough whoppers to open a Burger King.
  Mr. Jost's letter follows:
                                          FRAILOLI/JOST, Inc.,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 1996.
     Editor, National Review,
     Attn: Karina Rollins,
     New York, NY.
       Dear Editor: In what might earn the championship trophy for 
     political hypocrisy, George Tobin attacks what he labels 
     ``false ethics charges'' against Newt Gingrich with a 
     diatribe of patently false assertions. His article ``Mud 
     Path'' contains no less than fourteen whoppers so grand in 
     scale we're lucky Mr. Tobin hacks away at legal briefs and 
     not cherry trees, or Washington, D.C. would be without it's 
     annual spring festival.
       I called Mr. Tobin and asked him if he had read the 
     complaints against Gingrich. He told me to read ``summaries 
     of the complaints provided to me'' from people ``I'm not at 
     liberty to disclose''
       Maybe Gingrich's staff wrote ``Mud Path'' and asked Mr. 
     Tobin to put his name to the article. If so, it makes one 
     wonder why they feel compelled to prevaricate so much. If 
     not, and this is an example of Mr. Tobin's attention to 
     detail, it is clear why he supports tort reform. It's 
     probably tough winning a contingency case when you get so 
     many facts wrong. With contingency law, unless you win you 
     don't get paid.
       We're not nit-picking here. In a complex, fact intensive 
     case like the one against Gingrich, dates and evidence 
     matter. Consider these fourteen instances where Tobin's 
     article twists the facts, and anyone will understand why the 
     case against Gingrich has been under review by the Ethics 
     Committee for more than six months.
       [[Page E724]] Whopper #1.--Tobin writes that Dean Timothy 
     Mescon of Kennesaw State College heard Gingrich speak in 
     March 1993 and approached the Congressman afterwards with the 
     suggestion he teach the ``Renewing American Civilization'' 
     course at the Dean's campus.
       This is pure baloney. In fact, Gingrich and Mescon had 
     known each other since November, 1991, according to documents 
     from the College. On October 14, 1992, Gingrich hand-wrote a 
     note to Mescon suggesting a meeting. It was one of many 
     letters he and Mescon exchanged regarding Gingrich's efforts 
     to help Mescon's consulting business get government contracts 
     for work in Africa. By march 1, 1993, Gingrich and Mescon had 
     already met in Washington, D.C. to discuss the course and 
     Gingrich wrote a lengthy memo assigning congressional staff 
     and consultants at GOPAC to work with Mescon.
       Whopper #2.--Tobin says Gingrich first asked Jeffrey 
     Eisenach, executive director of GOPAC, to work on the course 
     in May of 1993.
       Check the documents. Eisenach was directing the course from 
     GOPAC's offices since February. Gingrich's March 1 memo 
     instructs Eisenach to work up a budget for the course and 
     identifies him as one of four co-authors of the course 
     textbook, along with Gingrich, Mescon and GOPAC consultant 
     Steve Hanser.
       Whopper #3.--Gingrich wrote to the Ethics committee on July 
     21, 1993 and informed the Committee that his staff members 
     ``would be asked to comment on the course content, but would 
     not be asked to perform any specific tasks.''
       Kennesaw documents demonstrate that three Gingrich 
     staffers, Linda Nave, Alan Lipsett, and Tony Blankley, were 
     ``tasked'' by Gingrich to work on legal matters, press 
     relations, and to lobby Kennesaw officials against an 
     impending decision to cancel the class. Just this week, the 
     Los Angeles Times reported that Lipsett and an unnamed 
     Gingrich associate admitted congressional staff 
     ``participated in everything from strategy meetings to 
     clerical errands.'' Lipsett told the Times: ``Looking back, 
     perhaps we should have created a few more fire walls.''
       Whopper #4.--In an exclusive, Tobin reports that on August 
     3, 1993, Congressman Fred Grandy wrote to Gingrich and gave 
     him permission to teach the course.
       Tobin has us at a disadvantage here. Apparently, he is the 
     first person outside of the Ethics Committee that has been 
     able to get a copy of this letter. Despite repeated requests 
     from the press and Ben Jones himself, Gingrich has 
     steadfastly refused to make this letter available for the 
     public.
       If we take Tobin's word for it, Grandy granted Gingrich 
     permission on behalf of the Ethics Committee to raise tax-
     exempt funds for the course so long as ``no congressional 
     funds were used.'' In point of fact, page 107 of the ``House 
     Ethics Manual'' discusses the relevant teaching restrictions 
     which apply to the Gingrich case. Members may teach, so long 
     as ``no official resources, including staff time, are used in 
     connection with the teaching.''
       Thanks to Gingrich's own staff, we now know that they were 
     quite extensively involved, in violation of the Ethics 
     Manual. Grandy's letter, quoted at length by Tobin, was 
     equally precise in the prohibition against staff time. 
     Gingrich just ignored it and the Ethics Manual.
       Whopper #5.--Tobin alleges that ``the facts don't confirm'' 
     the charge that Gingrich cited corporations in his course as 
     a form of advertising for his sponsors.
       Kennesaw accounting records show the total cost of the 
     course was $390,676, not $660,000 as Tobin reported without 
     substantiation. This would mean that the percentage of 
     contributions which fall in the ``infomercial'' category 
     rises from the 7% Tobin calculates to 11.8% of the actual 
     total. In either case, Tobin is citing ``facts'' which 
     confirm the allegation.
       When officials at Reinhardt College leaned of these facts 
     from Roll Call, they conducted their own review of the course 
     and instructed Gingrich to remove the offending commercials. 
     Professor Kathleen Minnix, who co-teaches the course at 
     Reinhardt with Gingrich, told Roll Call, ``What I found is 
     essentially what you found.'' Minnix also told the Atlanta 
     Constitution that Reinhardt officials were asking for the 
     commercials to be removed because of the ``appearance of 
     impropriety.'' Read the Ethics Manual. It specifically 
     instructs Members of Congress to ``at all times avoid'' 
     situations which create the ``appearance of impropriety''.
       Whopper #6.--Tobin reports that the Georgia Board of 
     Regents met in ``October 1993, without prior notice,'' to 
     close a loophole Gingrich exploited to teach at Kennesaw.
       The Board unanimously approved the change after discussing 
     it a month earlier during a prior meeting. The Atlanta 
     Constitution reported the next day that ``Gingrich, who last 
     month (emphasis added) said he would abide by any change the 
     regents made and would seek out a private school as the 
     future of his home course, took the news personally.''
       The irony of this Tobin falsehood is that Gingrich disputes 
     it. He has admitted he reimbursed the U.S. Treasury for 
     improperly using an official fax machine on September 7th to 
     send a lengthy defense of his course to the Regents, written 
     on official stationery, lobbying against their impending 
     decision. The whole campus knew about the Regents meeting, 
     especially Professor Gingrich.
       Whopper #7.--Tobin states that GOPAC ``treasurer'' Pamla 
     Prochnow ``had limited contact with the project in its first 
     few weeks.''
       Again, look at the documents. Prochnow was the Finance 
     Director for GOPAC, not treasurer, and appears on dozens of 
     memos and faxes regarding her efforts to raise funds for the 
     course during March, April, May and June of 1993.
       Whopper #8.--Tobin makes reference to an analysis of the 
     course written by ``tax analyst Lee Shepard, appear[ing] in 
     the September 20, 1993 issue of the authoritative Tax Notes 
     Today.'' He goes on to complain ``this refutation of the 
     charge of favoritism and influence peddling has not been 
     cited'' in the pieces attacking Mr. Gingrich's course.
       Well, it has been cited, in Roll Call and the Los Angeles 
     Times, accurately reporting that Ms. Shepard found many 
     problems in the tax code with the Gingrich course. In a more 
     recent article, Mrs. Shepard goes beyond even the ethics 
     complaints to suggest that Gingrich might have violated the 
     IRS prohibition against ``personal inurement'' by private 
     individuals from the benefits of tax-exempt activities.
       Whopper #9.--It is clear Mr. Tobin has not read the Ben 
     Jones complaint. Not only does he get the date it was filed 
     wrong, (September 7, 1994, not October 31, 1994) but he has 
     turned the central argument of the complaint inside-out. 
     Jones did not allege that GOPAC funded the Gingrich course, 
     although 80 percent of the money came from prior donors to 
     GOPAC or Gingrich's campaign committee. The Jones complaint 
     centered on the fact
      Gingrich used tax-exempt, tax-deductible funds to finance 
     the partisan political activities of GOPAC through the 
     college course. Five members of GOPAC's staff were paid or 
     reimbursed from tax-exempt funds to work on the course. 
     One even left GOPAC's employ for six months and relocated 
     to Georgia on the foundation payroll to work on the 
     course, only to return to Washington and GOPAC.
       Whopper #10.--Mr. Tobin alleges, without support, that the 
     activities of the Kennesaw State College Foundation and the 
     Progress and Freedom Foundation ``are unquestionably lawful'' 
     in relation to their support for the college course.
       As reported in the Washington Post, Roll Call, and the 
     Atlanta Constitution, the Gingrich case has many parallels 
     with an earlier case brought before the IRS. GOPAC consultant 
     Joe Gaylord was a board member of the ``American Campaign 
     Academy'' a tax exempt entity shut down by the U.S. Tax Court 
     because it improperly engaged in partisan political activity, 
     violating its tax-exempt status. Gingrich has been asked by 
     Mr. Grandy and his colleague Mr. McDermott, then the chair of 
     the Ethics Committee, to respond on this issue and about Mr. 
     Gaylord's role in the college course. The partisan marketing 
     of the course, and GOPAC's extensive role, raise serious 
     questions about whether the tax-exempt foundations behind the 
     course acted lawfully.
       Whopper #11.--Without citing any reference to ethics rules 
     or codes of conduct, Tobin alleges that Minority Whip David 
     Bonior's prediction that the Committee ``will deadlock'' is 
     in itself an ethical violation if based upon conversations 
     with committee members.
       If that were true, Gingrich himself should be in jail for 
     his regular consultations with Republican members of the 
     Ethics Committee considering the complaint against then-
     Speaker Jim Wright. What Gingrich understood then, and Tobin 
     forgets now, is that Member to Member communications are 
     protected speech under the Constitution. The reason he cited 
     no ethical violation is because there is none, just Tobin's 
     assertion.
       Whopper #12.--With respect to the sweetheart deal Gingrich 
     received from Jones InterCable, Tobin makes the allegation 
     that the Gingrich course ``got the same deal that every other 
     course on ME/U gets.''
       Even the Jones folks can't side with Tobin on this one. 
     Their own press spokesman Jim Carlson states the Gingrich 
     course is being broadcast without the standard agreement ME/U 
     negotiated with 35 other universities for tuition payments. 
     It's a one-of-a-kind deal.
       Whopper #13.--Tobin invents a characterization of the 
     Schroeder complaint as arguing that ``any appearance of an 
     elected figure on television in a context other than a paid 
     campaign spot constitutes a donation of air time * * *''
       He's simply got it wrong. Schroeder makes no such 
     assertion. In a silly extension of his own illogic, Tobin 
     suggests Schroeder's appearance on CNN's Capital Gang is a 
     gift of free air time from Ted Turner. The difference between 
     a news show, controlled by the network, and directed by the 
     reporters asking questions, and Mr. Gingrich directing
      producing and controlling 20 hours of free cable time, 
     unedited, is the difference between day and night. It is a 
     gift to Gingrich because he alone controls the content.
       Whopper #14.--Tobin attacks a March 8, 1995 story in the 
     Washington Post as a ``distortion'' and ``the exact reverse 
     of the truth'' on the critical issue of whether the Grandy 
     letter authorized Gingrich to use the House floor to solicit 
     for the course.
       Tobin points out that Grandy's letter restated House Rules 
     which authorize Members to assist tax-exempt organizations 
     with fundraising so long as ``no official resources are used, 
     no official endorsement is implied, and no direct personal 
     benefit results.'' His tortured logic is that by granting 
     Gingrich permission in the same letter to place his 
[[Page E725]] lectures in the Congressional Record, Grandy gave 
Gingrich a blanket exemption from complying with the House Rules cited 
in his letter. It is completely lost on Tobin that Grandy's letter, 
like all advisory opinions from the Ethics Committee, granted only 
conditional approval for Gingrich's conduct, so long as Gingrich 
complied with all House Rules.
       By highlighting the Grandy letter, Mr. Tobin has undermined 
     Mr. Gingrich's case. We now have learned from Gingrich's 
     staff that he used official resources on the course. 
     Documents before the Ethics Committee show that GOPAC staff 
     reprinted Gingrich's Congressional Record remarks and 
     enclosed them with their Requests For Funding, violating the 
     prohibition on ``official endorsement.'' And of course, we 
     know that Gingrich personally profits from the course with 
     his $4.5 million book deal that agent Lynn Chu and Jeffrey 
     Eisenach both say is based on the course.
       Is there any doubt now why an independent counsel is needed 
     in this case? If the Gingrich organization will go to these 
     lengths to distort the facts, change dates, and misrepresent 
     what actually happened, what more are they hiding?
           Sincerely,
                                                   Steven J. Jost.

       (Mr. Jost is a Democratic political consultant who worked 
     on the Ben Jones race against Newt Gingrich in 1994 and 
     assisted with the ethics complaint filed by Jones.)
     

                          ____________________