Multiple sources are reporting that Newt Gingrich received up to $1,800,000 in compensation from Freddie Mac–the government mortgage giant that many conservatives blame for causing the housing collapse along with Fannie Mae. This is much more than the $300,000 amount that was mentioned during the CNBC Debate. Newt has maintained that his role for Freddie Mac was one of a consultant, not a lobbyist. That is going to be a tough sell, as sources within the government entity are contradicting Newt’s story.
Read more about this here and here.
Update: Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist at the time, has said that Newt did not lobby on behalf of the government entity: “What he did was provide counsel on public policy issues…There was no expectation that he would do any lobbying, and he did not do any lobbying.”
Do NOT believe anything Fannie & Freddie say – they are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Dems. I repeat, do NOT believe any of this without PROOF and a fully vetted sense of what all sides say.
Stop with the doubting Thomas attitudes about Conservatives and Conservatism. We MUST stop the neo-marxism coming from the University/J School world.
Think MORE, Emote LESS – that is Conservative.
Greg in Denver
Unless Newt was running Freddie and Fannie (into the ground), I just don’t care.
“as sources within the government entity are contradicting Newt’s story”
how could anyone give credence to ‘sources within the government entity responsible’, in part, to our economic malaise?
second, newt is moving up the primary ladder so it was only a matter of time before the smears started spewing forth
i guess this is just par for the course
My God! What a lame story! Can anyone imagine anyone from Freddie or Fannie NOT accusing Newt of anything to hurt him? Look at all of the Demorats that have made tens of millions from these two programs and to single Newt out for a consulting job is just stupid. I hate to say it but the Tattler is getting down to the Daily Crawler level of reporting.
Funny sense of proportionality here. Newt:GSEs = Cain:bimbos
There’s no sense in defending Newt on this matter or the dozens and dozens to come. He will do as well as can be done, denying some outright, deflecting others, explaining some, and doing mea culpas to others.
We are down to 8 candidates, and only 2 are feasible nominees, Romney and Newt. Cain and Perry are barely conceivable, but the odds of Romney, Newt, and the field are in the neighborhood of 50+ / 30 / 20-.
You have to play the hand that is dealt, and this hand we have.
The question is: do you want a strong candidate who is going to play it down the middle in the general election (Romney), or a strong candidate with 30 years of obvious-to-the-world warts who will take it to Obama better than anyone else (Newt), or a candidate who probably won’t be very good and almost surely will do or say things that will cause his own defeat (the rest of the field)?
I’m for Newt unless he is Borked so massively that even he can’t survive. If that happens, it has to be Romney because the alternative is a new bunker in the back yard and food stamps for life.
… and I was right.
Push on fellow travelers.
Newt’s heart shines with the light of Jesus, the rest of him is pure political grifter.