Gingrich admits affair, but not hypocrisy

ImaginalDisc said:
I don't recall having said that. He was investigated for a blow job, one which was in no way criminal. Lewinsky never pressed charges for harassment, so the investigation shouldn't have taken place at all.
Click to expand...
He was investigated for the blow job only insofar as the potential testimony of any witness in a larger case is investigated.

The investigation was for the Paula Jones lawsuit. Lewinsky was an (unwilling) witness.

See this link for a good summary.
 
pgwenthold said:
Can someone clarify something for me: Was this affair by Newt cheating on his current wife? Or was it with his current wife cheating on his previous wife?

I'm just trying to get it straight.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure he was cheating on former wife number 2 with now wife number 3. FOrtunately, no one was suffering from cancer this time.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
That's not what I mean. He wasn't accused of doing anything illegal, and no one pressed any charges against him, so why was there an investigation? Because he was cheating on his wife? I don't recall a similar investigation into Kennedy's private life.
Click to expand...
Yes, he was. It was the Paula Jones lawsuit.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Oddly, same argument the right is using in urging the pres. pardon libbly...no not the BJ, but that there was no underlying crime so the prosecution for lying about it should never have taken place.

I reject this conclusion, but that is essentially what is being argued about Libby. It is important to keep in mind that Bill Clinton's lies will always be worse than anyone else's lies. Sort of a lies, damn lies and Bill Clinton lies higherarcy of deception.
Click to expand...

No, I fully support prosecuting Clinton for perjuring himself. Why he was compelled to speak under oath in the first place is, in my mind, a separate matter. Once you're under oath, you're legally obligated to comport yourself in a certain manner, and as Clinton is a lawyer, he had no excuse for lying under oath.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Oddly, same argument the right is using in urging the pres. pardon libbly...no not the BJ, but that there was no underlying crime so the prosecution for lying about it should never have taken place.

I reject this conclusion, but that is essentially what is being argued about Libby. It is important to keep in mind that Bill Clinton's lies will always be worse than anyone else's lies. Sort of a lies, damn lies and Bill Clinton lies higherarcy of deception.
Click to expand...
I don't reject the conclusion. As far as I can tell, there was no crime with Valerie Plame up until the lying under oath thing.

There was almost certainly some nasty political dealings, but that is par for the course.

Regarding Clinton, there initially was the Paula Jones case which presented the Republicans with an opportunity to attack politically--an opportunity they seized with ill-advised gusto resulting in an impeachment for lying under oath about a subject not material to the proceedings.

Neither Libby's case nor Clinton's impeachment should ever have been.
 
pgwenthold said:
Can someone clarify something for me: Was this affair by Newt cheating on his current wife? Or was it with his current wife cheating on his previous wife?

I'm just trying to get it straight.
Click to expand...

If I read this right, it looks like it was with his current wife:
In 1962, Gingrich married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old; she was seven years his senior at 26 years old. They had two daughters together.

Anne Manning had an affair with Gingrich in 1977. Manning stated in a 1995 Vanity Fair article: "We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say: 'I never slept with her.'"

Gingrich divorced Jackie Battley in 1980, serving her with divorce papers and forcing her to negotiate the terms of their divorce settlement while she was in the hospital after cancer surgery. He refused to pay alimony or child support.

Gingrich married Marianne Ginther in late 1981. They divorced in 1999, reportedly because of Marianne's dislike of Washington and Gingrich's time away from home. Marianne was quoted in a 1995 article in Vanity Fair as saying: "I don't want him to be president and I don't think he should be."

Gingrich later married Callista Bisek, a House aide 23 years his junior, with whom he had an extramarital affair during his marriage to Marianne Ginther (as revealed in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson). Mr. Gingrich resides in Virginia with Callista, who appears with him on the back cover of his book "Winning the Future".

The Gingrich family includes two daughters, two sons-in-law, and two grandchildren.
Click to expand...
 
"Once you're under oath, you're legally obligated to comport yourself in a certain manner, and as Clinton is a lawyer, he had no excuse for lying under oath."

Indeed...as was Libby before the Grand Jury -- even if (and I am not sure I agree that there was no underlying crime) no underlying crime is ever alleged.

Fitzgerald's point was that you can't investigate whether a crime has occured when it is alleged if people lie to you....
 
Garrette said:
He was investigated for the blow job only insofar as the potential testimony of any witness in a larger case is investigated.

The investigation was for the Paula Jones lawsuit. Lewinsky was an (unwilling) witness.

See this link for a good summary.
Click to expand...

After Ms. Jones filed the lawsuit, the attorneys for President Clinton moved to delay any proceedings, contending that the Constitution required that any legal action be deferred until his term ended, an issue ultimately decided against the President by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). Following the Supreme Court decision allowing the Jones lawsuit to proceed, pre-trial discovery commenced in which various potential witnesses were subpoenaed for information related to the Jones incident and, over objections of the President's attorneys, Mr. Clinton's alleged sexual approaches to other women. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted summary judgment in favor of President Clinton, dismissing the Jones suit in its entirety, finding that Ms. Jones had not offered any evidence to support a viable claim of sexual harassment or intentional infliction of emotion distress. Ms. Jones appealed Judge Wright's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but before a decision on the appeal was rendered, Ms. Jones and the President settled the case on November 13, 1998.
Click to expand...

That's the Paula Jones bit. It was settled in November. That turned into a witch hunt by Starr when he was authorized to expand his Watergate investigations into areas having to do with allegations of sexual misconduct.

At the point when Starr's investigation of financial dealing during Clinton's time in Arkansas turned into an investigation of his sex life I stopped believing it was a serious criminal investigation.
 
firecoins said:
delete
Click to expand...
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
On January 17, President Clinton was deposed in the Jones lawsuit. He denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by her lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her. On January 21, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and ABC News reported that Starr had expanded his investigation of the President to include the allegations related to Lewinsky. After repeated media inquiries, on January 26 President Clinton asserted in an appearance before the White House press corps: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," and denied urging her to lie about an affair.
Click to expand...

At that point, it really becomes a semantic game around "sexual relations."
 
Garrette said:
I don't reject the conclusion. As far as I can tell, there was no crime with Valerie Plame up until the lying under oath thing.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define crime. They did not have enough evidence to prove that people knew it was a felony to out Plame, and as that is a requirement for that particular law no crime was commited. They didn't know it was illegal so it was ok is why it was legal.
 
Garrette said:
Note it says that Clinton "was deposed in the Jones lawsuit." Bolding mine.

That's my point.
Click to expand...

What is your point exactly? He denied, under oath, having had "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Whether what they in fact did do constitutes "sexual relations" is a question of semantics.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
That's the Paula Jones bit. It was settled in November. That turned into a witch hunt by Starr when he was authorized to expand his Watergate investigations into areas having to do with allegations of sexual misconduct.

At the point when Starr's investigation of financial dealing during Clinton's time in Arkansas turned into an investigation of his sex life I stopped believing it was a serious criminal investigation.
Click to expand...

What just because he was someone Bush I was thinking of nominating to the supreem court you don't think it was fully impartial and un partisan?
 
Garrette said:
Note it says that Clinton "was deposed in the Jones lawsuit." Bolding mine.

That's my point.
Click to expand...

In a law suit that was thrown out by the judge who's point was, even if everything that ms. Jones claims is true it still fails to be a valid case
 
ImaginalDisc said:
What is your point exactly? He denied, under oath, having had "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Whether what they in fact did do constitutes "sexual relations" is a question of semantics.
Click to expand...
My point:

1. The investigation was not centered on Clinton's sexual habits or the blow job he got from Lewinsky.

2. The investigation was in the course of the Paula Jones lawsuit, and Lewinsky was a witness whose testimony led to Clinton's deposition on this topic.

3. Clinton did, in fact, have sexual relations with Lewinsky.

4. Clinton did, in fact, lie under oath.

5. Though the investigation of the Jones lawsuit led to Lewinsky and the blowjob, it should not have gone to the point of deposing Clinton on that topic as it was immaterial to the proceedings.

6. Since it was immaterial to the proceedings, it either is not or should not be prosecutable in itself.

7. The fact it was prosecuted despite being immaterial to the original proceedings is an indication of how politically driven the whole thing was.

8. Similarly, the prosecution of Libby for lying under oath is politically driven and not materially so.
 
Hmmm...The prosecution of Clinton was driven by a very politically connected special prosecutor...one tied to the oposition. While whatever elese Fitzgerald may be, no one has accused him of being in bed with the democrats (like the way I used that phrase in the context of this thread?) or of being a political hack. Just an observation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom