Gingrich was paid nearly $2 million by Freddie Mac

[Jacobtm]

For ''strategic advice''

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/16/gingrich-my-1-8-million-payment-from-freddie-mac-wasnt-just-to-me/

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

what is improper about this, exactly?

[Wonkish1]

Now they are adding the retainer fees he got from a contract from 1999-2002.

The Gingrich Group is a consulting outfit. And to some extent so is the Center for Health Transformation. Those outfits earn retainers from companies to offer consulting advice.


Newt volunteered the information(unprompted) that he told Freddie execs they were in a bubble in speech I watched back in 2009.

And Newt has a little bit of a cocky demeanor when interviewers are asking him about this issue. You can tell he wants this to be the one that the media puts all of its eggs in because he knows its not going anywhere.

[angus]

what is improper about this, exactly?

Depends upon your perspective.  On the far right and on the far left many people will have problems with this.  Not sure about the center.

Fanny Mae (and Freddy Mac) don't have enough inspectors.  They have illegally foreclosed on mortgages.  They have provided lending during a bubble which burst.  They didn't vet their borrowers well.  On top of that, government officials have demands that lenders repurchase bad mortgages from Fannie Mae.  And foreclosures have cost lenders billions of dollars.  Much of it comes from losses tied to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA, which together buy or insure more than 90 percent of new mortgages.  FNMA has drawn something like a hundred billion from the government since being siezed three years ago.  It's a money pit.  Now, we learn that Gingerich's company filled its coffers with "consulting fees" from Fanny Mae, in a period leading up to the housing bubble.  Doesn't look good for the amphibian, does it?

"Conservative credentials?!"  Doesn't much seem like it.

[Wonkish1]

what is improper about this, exactly?

Depends upon your perspective.  On the far right and on the far left many people will have problems with this.  Not sure about the center.

Fanny Mae (and Freddy Mac) don't have enough inspectors.  They have illegally foreclosed on mortgages.  They have provided lending during a bubble which burst.  They didn't vet their borrowers well.  On top of that, government officials have demands that lenders repurchase bad mortgages from Fannie Mae.  And foreclosures have cost lenders billions of dollars.  Much of it comes from losses tied to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA, which together buy or insure more than 90 percent of new mortgages.  FNMA has drawn something like a hundred billion from the government since being siezed three years ago.  It's a money pit.  Now, we learn that Gingerich's company filled its coffers with "consulting fees" from Fanny Mae, in a period leading up to the housing bubble.  Doesn't look good for the amphibian, does it?

"Conservative credentials?!"  Doesn't much seem like it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing business with a GSE that later collapses because of its own problems. Newt is not complicit in anything they did. He wasn't involved in legislation. He wasn't an elected politician. He wasn't lobbying. Offering consulting advice is absolutely no different than collecting a retainer and billable hours for having your firm provide legal advice to a company as an attorney.

Unless someone can show evidence of Newt giving them advice to lever more, continue to lower underwriting standards, or advise on how to achieve a bailout then he has done absolutely nothing wrong.

[angus]

I didn't say illegal.

Legality bears little relevance in thirty-second television advertisements.

jmfcst just said improper.  And that's a term that just might stick if thrown against the wall.  Especially if it's thrown by an accomplished spinmeister.

Obama's team knows what it's doing, my man.  Don't underestimate them.  Gingerich has far too much baggage to take lightly.  Baggage of all sorts.  This is just a little icing on the cake.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst just said improper.  And that's a term that just might stick if thrown against the wall. 

Newt:  "Is it my fault I was paid to give advice to Freddie Mac and Freddie Mac ignored my advice?....[followed by recital of long list of warnings Newt gave which proved to be correct]"

who are they going to blame next, the Freedie Mac janitor?

[Link]

what is improper about this, exactly?

At my preschool we learned lying is wrong.

[Link]

jmfcst just said improper.  And that's a term that just might stick if thrown against the wall.  

Newt:  "Is it my fault I was paid to give advice to Freddie Mac and Freddie Mac ignored my advice?....[followed by recital of long list of warnings Newt gave which proved to be correct]"

who are they going to blame next, the Freedie Mac janitor?

Was the janitor lying too?

[Bull Moose Base]

Newt:  "Is it my fault I was paid to give advice to Freddie Mac and Freddie Mac ignored my advice?....[followed by recital of long list of warnings Newt gave which proved to be correct ]"

translation: Is it my fault I claim I was paid to give advice? [followed by long list of warnings Newt claims he gave]

Not that this answer would hurt him.  We're talking about the GOP where fewer believe the series of sexual harassment allegations against Cain are true than believe they're part of an Obama conspiracy.

[Lief 🗽]

New Gingrich is a historian. You'll find that most historians are regularly paid millions of dollars to give people advice on current affairs.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

certainly, as a consultant [or whatever], Newt did some documentation of the advice he gave.  I know that I always document the advice I give clients, so that at the end of the day, the client is the one who eats the soup, no matter if the soup turned out good or bad.

[opebo]

certainly, as a consultant [or whatever], Newt did some documentation of the advice he gave.  I know that I always document the advice I give clients, so that at the end of the day, the client is the one who eats the soup, no matter if the soup turned out good or bad.

What does that mean?  That  you and Geingrich can't be held responsible for your statements?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

certainly, as a consultant [or whatever], Newt did some documentation of the advice he gave.  I know that I always document the advice I give clients, so that at the end of the day, the client is the one who eats the soup, no matter if the soup turned out good or bad.

What does that mean?  That  you and Geingrich can't be held responsible for your statements?

Well, I am experienced enough that I give conservative advice and warn of potential hazards, and document it all with at least an email if not a formal report.  In doing so, I insulate myself from any attempts to scapegoat my work.

Newt's company HAS to have some document trace of the advice they gave.

[Wonkish1]

I didn't say illegal.

Legality bears little relevance in thirty-second television advertisements.

jmfcst just said improper.  And that's a term that just might stick if thrown against the wall.  Especially if it's thrown by an accomplished spinmeister.

Obama's team knows what it's doing, my man.  Don't underestimate them.  Gingerich has far too much baggage to take lightly.  Baggage of all sorts.  This is just a little icing on the cake.

Didn't claim yo did. It isn't unethical either!

[Wonkish1]

what is improper about this, exactly?

At my preschool we learned lying is wrong.

That doesn't prove lying! Right now its he said, she said.

But considering I actually heard a speech in 2009 where he offered the information on his own accord that Freddie Mac people came into his office and told him what they were doing and he said gave the same response in that speech. That is quite telling because he actually wasn't asked about it. He offered it up himself.

[Link]

New Gingrich is a historian. You'll find that most historians are regularly paid millions of dollars to give people advice on current affairs.

I agree, but the Republican base is very disingenuous.  Anyone that thinks they are making decisions based on a logical consistent framework is deluding themselves.  When Obama ran for president he was called inexperienced and savaged by the right.  Three years later we see the results of his foreign policy.  When Cain is asked about his take on Libya we are treated to the most shambolic train wreck I have ever seen on the presidential campaign trail (Sara Palin was running for VP not president).  Yet that guy was the consistent front runner in this campaign.

Newt is clearly lying.  But it won't hurt him with the Republican base.  It's a joke.

[Wonkish1]

New Gingrich is a historian. You'll find that most historians are regularly paid millions of dollars to give people advice on current affairs.

If you think that was the limits of Newt's knowledge and value to a company from a consulting perspective than there is anything you'll believe.

[Link]

what is improper about this, exactly?

At my preschool we learned lying is wrong.

That doesn't prove lying! Right now its he said, she said.

But considering I actually heard a speech in 2009 where he offered the information on his own accord that Freddie Mac people came into his office and told him what they were doing and he said gave the same response in that speech. That is quite telling because he actually wasn't asked about it. He offered it up himself.

Of course he offered it.  He's not an idiot.  You think he is the first person to think about covering up a "crime" before someone asks?

[Wonkish1]

Look in early 2010, I actually listened to Newt predict a future crash in China caused by their property markets. That was a view that only a small group of people at the time had(including myself) and (when it comes true) would represent the only time in American history where a presidential candidate or president accurately predicted a future bubble in a public speech.

You guys are acting like he is an idiot that doesn't understand how assets work. Since I've actually listened to and read at least 100 times more stuff Newt has produced than anybody else on this board I can just tell you that the arguments made here are so far off base I don't know where to start.

[Wonkish1]

Of course he offered it.  He's not an idiot.  You think he is the first person to think about covering up a "crime" before someone asks?

What are you talking about?

A) No crime
B) Completely ethical and a none issue
and
C) It was an off the cuff statement that just fit perfectly in making his point and was designed to help confirm that he is one of the smartest guys in the room(which if you actually had heard it would be patently obvious).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

New Gingrich is a historian. You'll find that most historians are regularly paid millions of dollars to give people advice on current affairs.

How does this delightful-sounding social programme work and where do I sign up for it?

[Wonkish1]

The best part is that I'm supremely confident in the media to continue to dig and dig and dig into this and waste the next few weeks on a subject they are going to be spanked for.

If I were Newt I would hold his resources back and answer the minimum needed for some time and then release his information and use it go on offense against the media. It will be hilarious. People are challenging him on this when they don't even understand how consulting works.


I mean what a soft ball investigation for Newt. I'm sure he's just sitting back smiling at the notion of how dumb his media counterparts are.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Of course he offered it.  He's not an idiot.  You think he is the first person to think about covering up a "crime" before someone asks?

the proper forum response is to point out that: "Newt, as a paid outside consultant, should have documented his advice to Freddie Mac.  And if he didn't document it, then he's not even following standard protocol within his own consulting firm.  Therefore, we await the expected documentation, from either Newt and/or Freddie, before rendering a verdict."

you, on the other hand, are just being a trolling arse...and after last night's freakish attempt to arrogantly claim you knew more than I do about the neighborhood I spent 22 years growing up in...you are now on ignore.

[Link]

Look in early 2010, I actually listened to Newt predict a future crash in China caused by their property markets. That was a view that only a small group of people at the time had(including myself) and (when it comes true) would represent the only time in American history where a presidential candidate or president accurately predicted a future bubble in a public speech.

I didn't hear that Newt Gingrich speech in 2010.  I just read the paper in 2009 and got the info...



Never get your news from a history professor.