wpostServer: http://css.washingtonpost.com/wpost2

Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Today’s Opinions poll

Should Congress deal with the immigration crisis -- tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors at the border -- before its August recess?

Submit
Next
Review your answers and share

Join a Discussion

There are no discussions scheduled today.

Weekly schedule, past shows

Right Turn
Posted at 12:15 PM ET, 11/15/2011

Gingrich needs to explain what he did for Freddie and Fannie

Last night on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, Newt Gingrich was asked about his $300,000 consulting fee from Freddie Mac:

C’mon, Newt. This sounds like Herman “I-can’t- tell-you-what-was-in-the-settlement-agreement-with-the-women-accusers” Cain. For starters, Gingrich has already talked about the agreement, so if there is such a confidentiality clause he and his spokesman have violated it multiple times. (And why should there have been such a provision? Did Freddie have something to hide?) Moreover, if Gingrich is nervous about breaching his obligations, why not ask Freddie Mac to disclose the entire agreement?

Once again we see that Gingrich hides behind the word “lobbying.” No one much cares if he lobbied Congress. What is at issue is his public advocacy both in and out of office for Freddie and its sister-lender, Fannie Mae. What is objectionable and entirely at odds with his anti-Washington message is his participation at the trough that fed so many political insiders and office holders, in essence buying their acquiescence, if not approval, for the lending scheme that helped wreck our financial system.

It’s time for Gingrich to be candid about what he did, what he was paid for and whether the receipt of that $300,000 prevented him from speaking out publicly to warn not just Freddie Mac executives but the public, the regulators and Congress.

By  |  12:15 PM ET, 11/15/2011

Categories:  2012 campaign

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company