Gingrich Involved in Adulterous Affair While Pursuing Clinton Impeachment

Gingrich Involved in Adulterous Affair While Pursuing Clinton Impeachment

www.nctimes.com

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

Reports of extramarital affairs have dogged him for years as a result of two messy divorces, but he has refused to discuss them.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Why shouldn't he be viewed as a hypocrite? That's exactly what he is. To split hairs and say Clinton was in trouble for lying about the Lewinsky affair is ludicrous.

The fact that the man campaigns on family values and moral character shows that he has no shame after two messy divorces. Also, a reprimand from the House Ethics Committee over misuse of tax-exempt funds to further his political agenda helped drive him to resign from Congress in 1998. That he is now a front runner for the GOP Presidential nomination even though he hasn't declared candidacy shows how desperate Republicans are going into 2008.

I guess he leads by counter-example.



www.nctimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Why shouldn't he be viewed as a hypocrite?

He SHOULD be viewed as a complete hypocrite. Absolutely.

Side note - everytime I see him I think of the Pillsbury Dough Boy. Remember that fella?

What a creep man. These politicians are nothing more then a bunch of disgusting, corrupt subhumans.

I think more investigation is put into people being hired for regular jobs then there is to being a politician here in the USA. They should all be put to extensive background checks , drug testing , and routine polygraph tests just like someone applying for a job at a bank, a stock brokerage or driving a bus and with even more rules.

Is it a wonder why these people spend millions to be appointed to these positions? Its an investment to the majority of them. They know its a high ROI if they play the game well.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
These politicians are nothing more then ......

Pretty much.

Politicians USED to be considered public servants. Those days are long gone. It's hard to find a politician who is really a public servant these days. Many claim to be. But ....

As soon as Newt commits purgury Ill buy that. Until then hes just another unfaithful scumbag. It seems people keep twisting what happened to Clinton into thinking he was impeached for messing around with that fat girl.
He was impeached for lying under oath.
Now you all are going to say "Bush lied lets impeach him"
Well, that may be but he hasnt lied under oath, has he?
I dont think the oath he took for the office of President required him to be honest, did it?

Its not right but its the way it is.

There are lots of things to hate Bush for but the fact still remains, Clinton commited a felony while in office and was impeached for it. Fair or not.

Sex with a fat girl, though gross, isnt a crime. Purgury is.

Um...So what? The Clinton impeachment wasn't about sex or an affair, as anyone who looks deeper than what the main stream media tells you to think knows.

ThePieMan: The reason people getting hired into regular jobs are looked into with more detail is because it's an HR department that hires them, knows what to look for, and is looking out for the best of the company. Politicians, on the other hand, are elected by us, most of whom don't want to bother taking the time to look into the issues, and even those of us who do tend to be political hacks who have already decided who we're going to vote for and are just trying to find a reason to do so.

Man, this is OLD news.

Gingrich had an affair while his wife was sick with cancer. The rumors I have heard are that he served divorce papers on her while she was in the hospital.

That's about as low as you can go, imo.

But that's not a felony. Clinton committed a felony. To compare the two is wrong.

Clinton lied under oath. Gingrich didn't.

Let's not be two-faced about this for a change, ok?

Don't sit there and say Lewis Libby didn't do anything wrong and should go unpunished while you say Clinton lied under oath and that's a felony and he is guilty. Clinton lied about adultery. Libby lied about treason. You be the judge which lie carries more weight. Judicial politics accounts for the difference in outcomes.

A lie is a lie is a lie. It is only when it is told under oath that it becomes indictable. That is a technicality. An important one, apparently, to many, but still a technicality.

They are all liars. Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Libby. All of them.

The point of this thread is the on-going hypocrisy of Gingrich and the moral turpitude of the electorate that favors him for the nation's highest office.

Who said anything about Libby? He perjured himself, and that's a felony. He was found guilty in a court of law and should be punished.

The ongoing hypocrisy of Gingrich would be the case were the Clinton impeachment based on sex, not on subverting an entire branch of government.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Let's not be two-faced about this for a change, ok?

Don't sit there and say Lewis Libby didn't do anything wrong and should go unpunished while you say Clinton lied under oath and that's a felony and he is guilty. Clinton lied about adultery. Libby lied about treason. You be the judge which lie carries more weight. Judicial politics accounts for the difference in outcomes.

Huh? How did Lewis Libby enter into this?

The point of this thread is the on-going hypocrisy of Gingrich and the moral turpitude of the electorate that favors him for the nation's highest office.

Where is the hypocrisy? Gingrich was an adulter; so was Clinton. That's not the point. The point is:

Clinton lied under oath and Gingrich did not. Now, if you can show me some inconsistency with those facts, then we can talk hypocrisy.

It doesn't matter what Clinton lied about; adultery, Bosnia, Arkansas, etc. The sole fact that matters is that he lied under oath.

The point is Gingrich was involved in an adulterous affair while he was pursuing impeachment against Clinton for lying (under oath)about being involved in an adulterous affair.

Some may be too partisan and narrow-minded to see it as hypocrisy, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

Re-read your comments on the Libby thread and maybe you will see why I brought it up.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
The point is Gingrich was involved in an adulterous affair while he was pursuing impeachment against Clinton for lying (under oath)about being involved in an adulterous affair.

Some may be too partisan and narrow-minded to see it as hypocrisy, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

Ahh...Yeah, I'm just a partisan hack. I think that preventing a woman from having a fair trial by lying to the courts and committing a felony, subverting an entire branch of government in order to protect yourself while heading a different branch of government is different than violating the trust of your wife.

Did I mention ?

Clinton broke the law in a big way when he had his affair and lied about it to law enforcement. He lied under oath. He lied in a sexual harrassment law suit.

Gingrich commited adultry and lied about it. He didnt' break the law like Clinton did, but it was slimey.

From my standpoint ... they are both disgusting.
Clinton is disgusting and a law breaker as well as a vow breaker.
Gingrich is disgusting and is a vow breaker.

Two for Clinton.
One for Gingrich.

Good God people...how many times do you Klinton Comrades have to be reminded that Klinton was impeached(but not convicted) of lying under oath, not for being unfaithful. Who cares if Newt is having an affair with a freak'n bisexual walrus, as long as he doesn't commit purgery while discussing it under oath, who cares? No one is above the law DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN.

o.p. by me
They are all liars. Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Libby. All of them.

shai hulud,

First off, you need to get your facts about the other posters straight before replying to the thread, or you come off like a jerk-wad.

Second, I pointed out that the same people who think Clinton should have been found guilty think Libby shouldn't have. That's hypocrisy in action.

Third, it is interesting to read how Clinton subverted an entire branch of government, while Gingrich was just having a little extra-marital sex.

I suppose President Bush is just having a little War on Terror, too?

What about subverting the entire electoral process of the US, then having it validated by your brother in Florida and your pals on the USSC? Just a little election fraud?

I guess its all about how good you are at covering up your lies and getting away with them.

Did anybody catch the part about the moral turpitude of the electorate?

You have voted FlyersFan for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Perfect, FF. Just what I was trying to say, but you summed it up so succinctly.

On the same topic, can anyone guess why Gingrich found religion at this particular point in his life?

Because he may declare his candidacy this fall, and he wants to defuse the issue before it becomes one.

Until he started to say Hey I want to be President.

The Hilary Machine in full force.

Maybe Newt will become the next Bill C.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
The point is Gingrich was involved in an adulterous affair while he was pursuing impeachment against Clinton for lying (under oath)about being involved in an adulterous affair.

Some may be too partisan and narrow-minded to see it as hypocrisy, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

Re-read your comments on the Libby thread and maybe you will see why I brought it up.

This is the only point that matters (your words, btw):

The point is Gingrich was involved in an adulterous affair while he was pursuing impeachment against Clinton for lying (under oath).

Why can't you see that it doesn't matter that both of them were being adulterers? Gingrich had no right to slam Clinton for that; he did, however have every right to slam him for lying under oath.

And I've gone back over the Libby thread, and still don't know what you mean. Libby lied, but there was no crime that preceded his lies.

Oh, Libby wasn't under oath when he lied?

That seems to be the determining factor in whether a lie counts here.