Gingrich Involved in Adulterous Affair While Pursuing Clinton Impeachment

No, I didn't say that he wasn't under oath.

I'm saying that, if not for the investigation (in which he lied), there would have been no crime that anyone was accused of.

That has yet to be determined. Fitzgerald has made it pretty clear that the Plame outing was a crime.

Lying under oath in a federal investigation is perjury. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Fitzgerald has made it pretty clear that the Plame outing was a crime.

Then Plame and hubby should be charged. They blabbed it all over DC .. at cocktail parties, etc etc.

Oh. They told Robert Novak and asked him to publish it in his newspaper column?

You will have to provide some kind of substantiation of your claim, because that's the first I've heard of it. Hearsay doesn't count.

Well Gingrich didn't lie under oath so you cant compare his admission of having an affair to that of Clinton actions. You should judge a president on what he dose in office and not what happens in his/her private life.

FDR was unfaithful to his wife and yet he did a pretty good job at seeing the US thou most of World War two. Clinton was also unfaithful but has a good economic record. Now lets take a look at Bush on a personal level I don't have a problem with him there aren't any affairs in the past or current ones that I know of . If you judge Bush by his actions in office he has been a poor president.

I almost fell of my chair when I heard this one, nothing but hypocrites on a power trip what we got on Washington right now.

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.

Gingrich did fail to pay child support and that is against the law?

In a practical sense, I agree with you xpert11, but it is also very true that the character and actions of a man are inseparable, especially when it comes to the POTUS.

It could be argued that, had Clinton avoided the moral scandals that plagued his tenure, there wouldn't have been the backlash that provided such an opportunity for the far right to come to power in the US the way it has over the last eight or ten years. Clinton's shady behavior was the impetus behind the neo-con movement, imo.

The fact that ole Newty was blasting Clinton in his terms and then shagg'n the doll himself is just another reason that EVERYONE should think about maybe putting another party into power. I love the conservatives reaction though....like this would never happen to them again. I swear there is no difference in these parties? How can people just so blindy vote for these 2 train wrecks? How many times do these two parties have to screw over the people that vote for them before that lash out?

It is true that the biggest problems Clinton faced were self inflicted. The rise of the religious right probably began under Reagan since then they have proven to extremely swallow providing you claim to be a Christian the religious right would forgive any act providing the person is a Republican.

I don't care who the president bangs in the Oval Office just as long as the US economy dosnt take a dent.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by xpert11]

Yes. It was the Moral Majority under Falwell during the Reagan years. GHWB was so completely lacking in charisma, and not forgiven for his "no new taxes" lie, that the movement lost momentum until Clinton's shenanigans gave it new, neo-con life, life that was capitalized on by the far right.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Yes. It was the Moral Majority under Falwell during the Reagan years. GHWB was so completely lacking in charisma, and not forgiven for his "no new taxes" lie, that the movement lost momentum until Clinton's shenanigans gave it new, neo-con life, life that was capitalized on by the far right.

Well I have to agree with you in this case.
In general terms if anything kills off the " Moral Majority" it will there own double standards. The funny thing is they cant work out why when one of there members as the likes of a extra martial affair with the member of the same sex a fire storm is set off.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
That has yet to be determined. Fitzgerald has made it pretty clear that the Plame outing was a crime.

Lying under oath in a federal investigation is perjury. Plain and simple.

Fitzy made his opinion heard. That doesn't make it fact.

And why do you keep pursuing this Libby thing? I've already agreed that he lied to the grand jury and to the FBI. That part of your argument is a non-issue, imo.

Plame was not covert. Even the author of the draft that defined what was covert admits that.

My point is, there have not been, and still have not been, any charges, of outing a covert CIA agent. Not a one. Fitz realizes that he doesn't have a case there.

But he went on with his "special investigation", under which Libby hung himself.

BTW, the original leak was not Cheney or Novak. It was Richard Armitage.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 10-3-2007 by jsobecky]

That is just it, isn't it? Don't the double standards equal hypocrisy? The splitting of hairs that enables those with an agenda to put aside their own's transgressions in order to point the finger at the other side.

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Forgiveness is immediate for a Christian. Rebuilding trust can and should take time. When an elected leader or church leader commits moral indiscretions, they should be held accountable and lose their mandate to lead.

Gingrich did not say "You have committed adultery, Mr. Clinton."

He said "You have lied under oath and committed perjury, Mr. Clinton".

Why can you not see the difference?

Gingrich pioneered a denial of adultery that some observers would later christen "the Newt Defense": Oral sex doesn't count. In a revealing psychological portrait of the "inner" Gingrich that appeared in Vanity Fair (September 1995), Gail Sheehy uncovered a woman, Anne Manning, who had an affair in Washington in 1977 with a married Gingrich.

"We had oral sex," Manning revealed. "He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" She added that Gingrich threatened her: "If you ever tell anybody about this, I'll say you're lying."

Manning was then married to a professor at West Georgia, the backwater college where Gingrich taught. "I don't claim to be an angel," she told Sheehy, but "he's morally dishonest."

The fact that Clinton broke the law has nothing to do with the overall fact that Gingrich and the Republican party were using a soap box to point finger as such the above Salon artical reads.



The most notorious incident in Gingrich's marriage -- first reported by David Osborne in Mother Jones magazine in 1984 -- was when he cornered Jackie in her hospital room where she was recovering from uterine cancer surgery and insisted on discussing the terms of the divorce he was seeking.

Shortly after that infamous encounter, Gingrich refused to pay his alimony and child-support payments. The First Baptist Church in his hometown had to take up a collection to support the family Gingrich had deserted.

These are the issues that are going to stick in this guys rear if he ever chooses to "throw his hat in the ring". And frankly I'm tired of seeing conservatives parade these idiots out as the American icon's of right. I keep stating that there is no difference in these two parties and am waiting for someone to show me the difference with out spitting a buncha political side stepping and redundant finger pointing. What have these two parties done for this country as of now?

jsobecky,

I am not defending Clinton. I'm saying that Gingrich is no better, but claims to be. He's a hypocrite. Split hairs about the particulars all you want.

This guy is joke. Wouldn't you know that Fallwell just had him as a guest speaker. No wonder either, standing next to Gingrinch made Fallwell not look like such a douche. I'm surprised he didn't also invite Michael Jackson and Britney Spears

I'm still not convinced that it was Armitage. That may just be a red herring. I recall the thread about the news of him claiming responsibility. Granted the guy had a grudge, but he may have just been trying to muddy the waters.

This is my response to that thread.

Again, you either buy into the administration's story, or you don't. Yellow cake, no yellow cake. WMD, no WMD. Saddam-9/11, no Saddam-9/11. Al-Qaeda/Iraq, no Al-Qaeda/Iraq. No Rendition, Rendition. No CIA prisons overseas, CIA prisons overseas.

Plame outed by Cheney, Bush, Rove, Libby, and now, Armitage. They are playing you for a fool, and you are lapping it up like an eager little puppy dog.
Plugging the Wrong Leak