Slog
News & ArtsFriday, January 20, 2012
2012 Gingrich: The Story Is False! I Did NOT Ask My Second Ex-Wife For An Open Marriage!
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:56 AM
Newt: "Let me be quite clear: the story is false, every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story is false, we offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false."
Let me be quite clear: Newt wasn't claiming that the story about his six-year affair with a congressional staffer twenty years his junior was false—the third Mrs. Gingrich was there last night—just the story about Newt asking his ex-wife to agree to an open marriage. That was false. (Callista "Devout Catholic" Gingrich was down with the open marriage: "Callista doesn't care what I do," Newt allegedly told his ex-wife.)
So... Newt Swingrich got a huge round of applause from a GOP debate audience packed with God-fearin', traditional-marriage-lovin', gay-marriage-hatin' social conservatives... for insisting that he cheated on his second ex-wife for six years like a good Christian. He did not ask his second ex-wife for an open marriage. An honest open relationship was never on the table. Newt and Callista's adulterous relationship was grounded in lies and deceit and betrayal from the start and Newt never wavered from that path. Newt never tried to negotiate an agreement—not even a retroactive one—that would have allowed him to sleep around and remain married. Newt did not ask his most recent ex-wife for an open marriage and he won't ask any of his future ex-wives for an open marriage.
Because that would be wrong.
Clap clap clap.
(Who are these friends who knew Newt and his second ex-wife and can "prove" her story is false? Were they present during these conversations between Newt and his second ex-wife?)
4
I'm confused. Why didn't the "journalist" follow up and ask him why, then, did he make it his life's work to impeach Bill Clinton for the same? Was that newscaster not alive in the 1990s? Or is that part edited out?
5
amazing how they forget their fambly values when it's convenient.
clinton impeachment? that was about perjury.
clinton impeachment? that was about perjury.
6
I think the sentiment expressed is that adultery and mistresses (for men only!) are a part of the traditional marriage equation that conservatives cherish so much, and open marriage is a new, foreign, homosexual-derived concept that has nothing to do with their daddy's and gran'daddy's concept of having sex with people other than your wife.
7
Old Newt has his timeline wrong. This was before he found Jebus and redeemed hisself. He should have said (to greater applause), "Yeah I did that but I regret a lot of my life before Jebus saved me!"
But since it is all a lie, Newt can't keep it straight in his mind.
But since it is all a lie, Newt can't keep it straight in his mind.
9
@4:
Yes, especially since he was boinking the not-yet-but-future 3rd Mrs. Gingrich at the same time he was trying to impeach Clinton for getting serviced by Monica.
The man is an unabashed hypocrite, liar, and borderline sociopath - and the mouth-breathers in SC apparently are perfectly okay with that.
Yes, especially since he was boinking the not-yet-but-future 3rd Mrs. Gingrich at the same time he was trying to impeach Clinton for getting serviced by Monica.
The man is an unabashed hypocrite, liar, and borderline sociopath - and the mouth-breathers in SC apparently are perfectly okay with that.
10
The real question is what desperate woman would want to have this bloated pig open up his marriage?
11
Bill Clinton called Newt Swingrich this morning.
Bill's opening comment to Newt: "Man, you got game!"
Bill's opening comment to Newt: "Man, you got game!"
12
@6 Nailed it. Dan, why do you make this so complicated? It's okay when he does it, not you. Besides, this was all made possible by the sexually permissive culture you endorse. So it's kinda your fault, you see, you made him do it. You are the black labrador retriever to his David Berkowitz.
13
All those people clapping wanted Clinton's head on a platter for his infidelity. Newt cheats twice ( both times when his wives were ill). Six years isn't even an affair.
He said we all know personal pain. That HE brought that "personal pain" to not one but two women that he married shows what kind of person he is.
I'm with Dan - there is no way they are "married" under the Catholic Church. Callista is little more than a homewrecker.
He said we all know personal pain. That HE brought that "personal pain" to not one but two women that he married shows what kind of person he is.
I'm with Dan - there is no way they are "married" under the Catholic Church. Callista is little more than a homewrecker.
15
I'm not defending newt here -- not really possible -- but as a more sheltered conservative youngster during the impeachment proceedings I alwAys thought it was mainly about perjury during a sexual harassment investigation, with some infidely added for good measure.
17
When a husband cheats on his wife, he does it behind her back. It's called traditional family values.
18
@ 14, I believe some women really do find power, fame, and wealth attractive. Newt's account with Tiffany's should tell you all you need to know about Callista.
For me, the question is, who finds Callista attractive? I suppose if I was 20+ years older than her I'd go for that youth thing, but I find her to be utterly creepy. She has reptile eyes, and her face and hair are done up like a mannequin's. Eep.
For me, the question is, who finds Callista attractive? I suppose if I was 20+ years older than her I'd go for that youth thing, but I find her to be utterly creepy. She has reptile eyes, and her face and hair are done up like a mannequin's. Eep.
19
OK, I've dug out my faux-outrage-proof keyboard, so here goes:
[begins]
[King] .. and Mr Speaker, I want to start with that this evening.
As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with the Washington Post and this story has now gone viral on the internet.
In it, she says that you came to her in 1999 at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her sir, to enter into an open marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?
[Swingrich] No, but I will. [applause, hoots, whistles from the audience]. I think, I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country,harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that [applause, hoots, whistles from the audience].
[King] Is that all you want to say sir?
[Swingrich] Let me finish. Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. [applause, hoots, whistles from the audience]. My two daughters, my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. [applause, hoots, whistles from the audience].
[King] As you noted Mr Speaker, this story did not come from our network, as you also know it is the subject of conversation in the campaign - I'm not, I'm not
[Swingrich] John, John
[King] I get your point, I take your point
[Swingrich] John it was repeated by your network, you chose to start the debate with it, don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start the debate with that.
Now, let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false, every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story is false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested, because they would like to attack any republican - they're attacking the governor, they're attacking me, I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul. I am tired of the elite media protecting Obama by attacking Republicans.
[King] As I noted... [can't speak for applause, hoots, whistles from the audience]
[ends]
More...
[begins]
[King] .. and Mr Speaker, I want to start with that this evening.
As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with the Washington Post and this story has now gone viral on the internet.
In it, she says that you came to her in 1999 at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her sir, to enter into an open marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?
[Swingrich] No, but I will. [applause, hoots, whistles from the audience]. I think, I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country,harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that [applause, hoots, whistles from the audience].
[King] Is that all you want to say sir?
[Swingrich] Let me finish. Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. [applause, hoots, whistles from the audience]. My two daughters, my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. [applause, hoots, whistles from the audience].
[King] As you noted Mr Speaker, this story did not come from our network, as you also know it is the subject of conversation in the campaign - I'm not, I'm not
[Swingrich] John, John
[King] I get your point, I take your point
[Swingrich] John it was repeated by your network, you chose to start the debate with it, don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start the debate with that.
Now, let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false, every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story is false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested, because they would like to attack any republican - they're attacking the governor, they're attacking me, I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul. I am tired of the elite media protecting Obama by attacking Republicans.
[King] As I noted... [can't speak for applause, hoots, whistles from the audience]
[ends]
20
@ 15/16, I think it's like FDR's observation about some Latin American dictator the US supported - "He's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." There may also be the obvious fight he has - without question, he would go after Obama like a pit bull after a toddler, and blood lust excites these people more than anything. You can't say that Romney or Santorum will bring the fight like Swingrich.
As far as the applauders go, false piety is nothing new. There are enough of these "good Christians" who get into all kinds of unchristian things six days of the week, that they won't be held accountable. Megachurch pastors will always have the sins of others to preach against, no need to check up on how their own flock behaves, not so long as they fill up the pews, cough up the tithes, and vote against anyone who buys what those gol-durn scientists say.
As far as the applauders go, false piety is nothing new. There are enough of these "good Christians" who get into all kinds of unchristian things six days of the week, that they won't be held accountable. Megachurch pastors will always have the sins of others to preach against, no need to check up on how their own flock behaves, not so long as they fill up the pews, cough up the tithes, and vote against anyone who buys what those gol-durn scientists say.
21
I can think of something more despicable. Leaving two wives because they got sick is more despicable. Being a cheating POS in at least two marriages is more despicable. Pursuing the destruction of another politician over a sexual relationship while engaging in the same kind of relationship is more despicable.
22
Seriously, this is the epitome of a he said/she said: A private conversation between husband and wife. For anybody other than the two people who actually had the conversation to claim to have personal knowledge of its truth or falsehood is an act of faith.
23
God, I hate this man. I sooo desperately want him to win the Republican nomination... partly because Obama will trounce him, but mostly because his landslide defeat will completely rip apart the Republican Party and destroy the social-cons' voting block forever.
25
@4
For some reason liberals don't understand law. Billy Joe Jimbob Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath in a sexual harrassment case brought against him as president of the United States. He also suborned other witnesses in that case, denying another citizen due process for his political convenience.
True, he used his position to have sex with a girl barely older than his daughter, and did so in the Oval Office. (Here's a thought- how many executives for your employer would keep their job after having sex with an intern a third their age in their corporate office? Anyone? Bueller?) True, he lied to the American people when a simple 'none of your business' would have done. True, he is and was morally and ethically bankrupt pond scum, but none of these are why he was impeached.
For some reason liberals don't understand law. Billy Joe Jimbob Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath in a sexual harrassment case brought against him as president of the United States. He also suborned other witnesses in that case, denying another citizen due process for his political convenience.
True, he used his position to have sex with a girl barely older than his daughter, and did so in the Oval Office. (Here's a thought- how many executives for your employer would keep their job after having sex with an intern a third their age in their corporate office? Anyone? Bueller?) True, he lied to the American people when a simple 'none of your business' would have done. True, he is and was morally and ethically bankrupt pond scum, but none of these are why he was impeached.
27
"(Who are these friends who knew Newt and his second ex-wife and can "prove" her story is false? Were they present during these conversations between Newt and his second ex-wife?)"
They are Rick & Elizabeth Santorums imaginary friends, of course!
They are Rick & Elizabeth Santorums imaginary friends, of course!
28
@21 I think you're dead on.
@20,
Personally I thought planting a row of partisans to jump up when swingrich was calling ex-wife #2 a liar (at the CNN debate), and having all the swingrichites in the audience cheer, was great theater. So I suggest to crank up the abandonment meme, something that goes along "till death do us part, or at least major illness and a new mistress". That is something the paid partisans can't spin.
Peace.
@20,
Personally I thought planting a row of partisans to jump up when swingrich was calling ex-wife #2 a liar (at the CNN debate), and having all the swingrichites in the audience cheer, was great theater. So I suggest to crank up the abandonment meme, something that goes along "till death do us part, or at least major illness and a new mistress". That is something the paid partisans can't spin.
Peace.
29
@26
I'm not in any way defending Newt Gingrich. When I promised my wife 'til death do us part' it's what I meant. Our marriage and our children are the single most important thing in my life and always will be. I have little respect for anyone who won't keep his or her word in something this important.
However, it may be that in Denver perjury laws don't apply. They do everywhere else in the nation.
Yeah, since he was Bill Clinton, an ammoral piece of garbage, he became disliked by decent people. Without also being a felon, he wouldn't have been impeached.
Nice try.
I'm not in any way defending Newt Gingrich. When I promised my wife 'til death do us part' it's what I meant. Our marriage and our children are the single most important thing in my life and always will be. I have little respect for anyone who won't keep his or her word in something this important.
However, it may be that in Denver perjury laws don't apply. They do everywhere else in the nation.
Yeah, since he was Bill Clinton, an ammoral piece of garbage, he became disliked by decent people. Without also being a felon, he wouldn't have been impeached.
Nice try.
30
@ 29, keep telling yourself that. I've got the knowledge of how, when, and why Whitewater was investigated to back me up. You may be technically correct, but you are completely off in every important way.
Internet pro tip - any time you use the same line against someone who used it against you, you show that its use against you was effective. So, thanks for confirming that.
Internet pro tip - any time you use the same line against someone who used it against you, you show that its use against you was effective. So, thanks for confirming that.
31
No, none of Newt's friends can prove that he didn't say to his then-wife what he allegedly said.
The problem, of course, is that neither can the former Mrs. Gingrich prove that he did, unless she has him on tape or he was stupid enough to write it down. (If either were the case, I'm sure we'd know by now.)
So people (myself included) will keep believing about this asshole what it suits them to. I really think this changes nothing.
The problem, of course, is that neither can the former Mrs. Gingrich prove that he did, unless she has him on tape or he was stupid enough to write it down. (If either were the case, I'm sure we'd know by now.)
So people (myself included) will keep believing about this asshole what it suits them to. I really think this changes nothing.
33
Seattleblahs, if you think any important executive would get bounced over a sexual harrassment suit (unless it involved children, a camera and the internet) you win the prize for the most naive slogger ever. Come back when you get a job in the real world. Or Google Herman Cain.
As for Gingrich, he's a whore. Newt Gingrich is a whore.
As for Gingrich, he's a whore. Newt Gingrich is a whore.
34
@30
Again, had Clinton not been a disgusting piece of trash you couldn't trust around your daughter, Whitewater wouldn't have happened.
All Clinton had to do was say at the beginning 'none of your business' That's all. An honest man trusts the truth. It's a lying piece of trash like Clinton who doesn't and must say things like "Ah did not have sex with that woman.". Whitewater was a waste of taxpayer money. It should have been disbanded long before it was. But that waste was directly enabled by Clintons perfidy.
So- in the company for which you work what would happen to a CEO that got oral sex in his corporate office from a barely adult intern?
Yeah, thought so.
Again, had Clinton not been a disgusting piece of trash you couldn't trust around your daughter, Whitewater wouldn't have happened.
All Clinton had to do was say at the beginning 'none of your business' That's all. An honest man trusts the truth. It's a lying piece of trash like Clinton who doesn't and must say things like "Ah did not have sex with that woman.". Whitewater was a waste of taxpayer money. It should have been disbanded long before it was. But that waste was directly enabled by Clintons perfidy.
So- in the company for which you work what would happen to a CEO that got oral sex in his corporate office from a barely adult intern?
Yeah, thought so.
35
@33
As pointed out, Gingrich is maybe a whoremonger, but not a whore. And as I wrote, you won't see me defending his behavior with regard to his wives.
A suit in which an important executive perjured themselves and suborned witnesses so stupidly that they got caught and exposed the company to civil or legal action? Yep. That would bounce most executives. It would probably be called a voluntary separation in the interests of the company and the executive, but the effect would be the same.
And I don't work for a government agency like you apparently do, so I kinda do understand the 'real world.' I know, a government worker can't be fired for any level of stupidity or incompentence or outright lawbreaking without the union screaming, but the 'real world' doesn't work that way.
To be fair, it usually would be the sin of getting caught rather than the act itself that caused the ouster, but since the effect is much the same you're quibbling over straws.
As pointed out, Gingrich is maybe a whoremonger, but not a whore. And as I wrote, you won't see me defending his behavior with regard to his wives.
A suit in which an important executive perjured themselves and suborned witnesses so stupidly that they got caught and exposed the company to civil or legal action? Yep. That would bounce most executives. It would probably be called a voluntary separation in the interests of the company and the executive, but the effect would be the same.
And I don't work for a government agency like you apparently do, so I kinda do understand the 'real world.' I know, a government worker can't be fired for any level of stupidity or incompentence or outright lawbreaking without the union screaming, but the 'real world' doesn't work that way.
To be fair, it usually would be the sin of getting caught rather than the act itself that caused the ouster, but since the effect is much the same you're quibbling over straws.
36
@34 While Matt and the rest of the crew tends to the bigger criticisms, I'll pick away at the little ones. While the rest of the country was freaked or self-righteously jealous that BC got to have sexual contact with 20somethings while in office, nothing ever surfaced indicating that these relationships were nonconsensual, or anything other than women who got excited at the prospect of sexing up powerful men (see the original thread).
If you're talking about Paula Jones, the woman who brought sexual harassment charges against him, in 1991 she was 24 and he was 44. 20 years, sure, but not even half, much less a third of his age.
Though if you've confused your facts thinking it was Monica who brought charges because this part of the trial overshadowed the rest publicly, and the age differences were greater (she was 22-24 during the years the affair took place compared to his 49-51). A little less than HALF his age, to be sure, but a "third" would definitely have also prompted some statutory rape charges.
At what point do you stop being "barely adult"? Military enrollment paperwork (and the titles of hundreds of porn titles) seem to say 18. In porn, you're washed up by 24, and in the military you're a 6-year veteran. Either of whom have absolutely earned the right to choose whose cock they put in their mouth.
If you're talking about Paula Jones, the woman who brought sexual harassment charges against him, in 1991 she was 24 and he was 44. 20 years, sure, but not even half, much less a third of his age.
Though if you've confused your facts thinking it was Monica who brought charges because this part of the trial overshadowed the rest publicly, and the age differences were greater (she was 22-24 during the years the affair took place compared to his 49-51). A little less than HALF his age, to be sure, but a "third" would definitely have also prompted some statutory rape charges.
At what point do you stop being "barely adult"? Military enrollment paperwork (and the titles of hundreds of porn titles) seem to say 18. In porn, you're washed up by 24, and in the military you're a 6-year veteran. Either of whom have absolutely earned the right to choose whose cock they put in their mouth.
37
@15 - That's partially incorrect -- but the partial part is crucial.
Clinton was never investigated for sexual harassment. Sexual harassment was never alleged by Monica nor any of the prosecutors. He was investigated for the Whitewater scandal, but despite spending millions of dollars on the investigation, Ken Starr could not find anything illegal that the Clintons had done.
But yes, while he was on the stand testifying under oath about Whitewater, he was questioned about the then-breaking stories that he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The hearings had absolutely nothing to do with Lewinsky and the question itself was entirely inappropriate. Yes, he lied under oath, but to a question that should never have been asked in the first place.
Clinton was never investigated for sexual harassment. Sexual harassment was never alleged by Monica nor any of the prosecutors. He was investigated for the Whitewater scandal, but despite spending millions of dollars on the investigation, Ken Starr could not find anything illegal that the Clintons had done.
But yes, while he was on the stand testifying under oath about Whitewater, he was questioned about the then-breaking stories that he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The hearings had absolutely nothing to do with Lewinsky and the question itself was entirely inappropriate. Yes, he lied under oath, but to a question that should never have been asked in the first place.
38
@ 34, do you usually blame rape victims, too? Because blaming Clinton for the Whitewater investigation is exactly on par with that. He was person who did nothing to bring it upon himself, other than be there when they wanted to take him down.
If there was anything - anything at all - linking the Clintons to the malfeasance that occurred in the Whitewater deal, it would have come out. The fact that they found nothing proves that they had nothing concrete in the first place. "Perfidy" - you don't know the meaning of the word.
BTW, in what world is 22, the age at which she first allegedly has sex with Clinton, "barely adult?" People younger than that get married every week, and sometimes to spouses old enough to be their parents. People four years younger than that can legally appear in "adult films." (And I'm certain many more corporate CEO's, including ones heading companies in your portfolio, have done that and worse.)
I'm glad you posted your comment, though. It exposes that, for you, as for everyone who supported the impeachment, that it was all about your hate for the man and your hate for his adultery. You couldn't care less about the perjury.
If there was anything - anything at all - linking the Clintons to the malfeasance that occurred in the Whitewater deal, it would have come out. The fact that they found nothing proves that they had nothing concrete in the first place. "Perfidy" - you don't know the meaning of the word.
BTW, in what world is 22, the age at which she first allegedly has sex with Clinton, "barely adult?" People younger than that get married every week, and sometimes to spouses old enough to be their parents. People four years younger than that can legally appear in "adult films." (And I'm certain many more corporate CEO's, including ones heading companies in your portfolio, have done that and worse.)
I'm glad you posted your comment, though. It exposes that, for you, as for everyone who supported the impeachment, that it was all about your hate for the man and your hate for his adultery. You couldn't care less about the perjury.
39
If you are a GOP conservative in good standing you can do no wrong. No matter how hypocritical, no matter how tortured the logic, no matter what, as long as you're a GOP conservative in good standing you are ok to do whatever you please.
This is why Romney is having such a tough time, they're not quite sure that he's enough of a GOP conservative. Once he's declared to be one all will be forgiven.
This is why Romney is having such a tough time, they're not quite sure that he's enough of a GOP conservative. Once he's declared to be one all will be forgiven.
40
Dear, sweet, naive, Seattleblahs. Such a funny little world you must live in.
For the record, although I am now merely a government employee, I am old. I was working in the private sector long before you met your highly theoretical wife and children - probably before you were even born.
Prior to that, Papa Vel-DuRay was the general counsel of a fortune 500 company. I know exactly how things get swept under the rug.
Maybe someday, if you work hard and pull yourself up by your bootstraps (nightschool, sack lunches, etc), you might move up in your company and find things out for yourself. Who knows? Maybe you'll be the one with the sexual harrassment suit filed against you. After all, If Newt can get a little on the side, anyone can.
For the record, although I am now merely a government employee, I am old. I was working in the private sector long before you met your highly theoretical wife and children - probably before you were even born.
Prior to that, Papa Vel-DuRay was the general counsel of a fortune 500 company. I know exactly how things get swept under the rug.
Maybe someday, if you work hard and pull yourself up by your bootstraps (nightschool, sack lunches, etc), you might move up in your company and find things out for yourself. Who knows? Maybe you'll be the one with the sexual harrassment suit filed against you. After all, If Newt can get a little on the side, anyone can.
41
@37
Your narrative is incorrect as to timeline in every respect, but even if it weren't-
When opposing counsel asks an inappropriate question while you're under oath, there is a legal procedure to use. You (or your attorney more likely) object to the relevance and ask the judge for a ruling as to whether you must answer. In answering without such a motion, you grant relevance.
Just thought you should know.
As for whether Clinton was a sleazy piece of human garbage, pretty much everyone knows he was. You folks defending his behavior would be equivalent to someone defending Gingritches marital behavior. It's pointless and detracts from your real issues. You'd do much better to leave the false equivalency to Clinton breaking the law and Gingritch being an asshole out of it.
Your narrative is incorrect as to timeline in every respect, but even if it weren't-
When opposing counsel asks an inappropriate question while you're under oath, there is a legal procedure to use. You (or your attorney more likely) object to the relevance and ask the judge for a ruling as to whether you must answer. In answering without such a motion, you grant relevance.
Just thought you should know.
As for whether Clinton was a sleazy piece of human garbage, pretty much everyone knows he was. You folks defending his behavior would be equivalent to someone defending Gingritches marital behavior. It's pointless and detracts from your real issues. You'd do much better to leave the false equivalency to Clinton breaking the law and Gingritch being an asshole out of it.
42
@15 and following up on post 37
Also, while the legal justification of impeachment was that he lied under oath, votes for impeachment stemmed more from the whipped up national frenzy surrounding his involvement with Lewinsky. Conservatives spent most of their time talking about a lack of morality in Clinton's actions and not the perjury, and this charge was lead by none other than Gingrich himself.
Also, while the legal justification of impeachment was that he lied under oath, votes for impeachment stemmed more from the whipped up national frenzy surrounding his involvement with Lewinsky. Conservatives spent most of their time talking about a lack of morality in Clinton's actions and not the perjury, and this charge was lead by none other than Gingrich himself.
43
@ 41, if you're going to keep harping on that, then you must acknowledge that he was acquitted by the Senate. That's a legal finding that no crime was committed. Just so you know.
Anyway, regarding your last paragraph, go ahead. Name the things Clinton did that make him as bad as Gingrich. Let's see what you got.
Anyway, regarding your last paragraph, go ahead. Name the things Clinton did that make him as bad as Gingrich. Let's see what you got.
44
@43
"That's a legal finding that no crime was committed. Just so you know."
No. It isn't. Impeachment can occur without a finding of criminal conduct or with, and doesn't impact whether a criminal court might find the person guilty separate from the impeachment proceedings. Additionally, the act of impeachment was concluded, the finding that the charges were justified was railroaded by a clever spin machine on the part of Democrats claiming it was just about sex.
It is the process by which we remove presidents whose conduct demeans the office of the presidency. And by that standard Clinton should have been removed.
"Namethe things Clinton did that make him as bad as Gingrich."
Unethical business standards, multiple affairs (which seems, oddly for a group that hates marriage like the Slog bunch, to be important only with respect to Gingrich) placing political points ahead of the national welfare- will these do for start, Matt old buddy old pal?
"That's a legal finding that no crime was committed. Just so you know."
No. It isn't. Impeachment can occur without a finding of criminal conduct or with, and doesn't impact whether a criminal court might find the person guilty separate from the impeachment proceedings. Additionally, the act of impeachment was concluded, the finding that the charges were justified was railroaded by a clever spin machine on the part of Democrats claiming it was just about sex.
It is the process by which we remove presidents whose conduct demeans the office of the presidency. And by that standard Clinton should have been removed.
"Namethe things Clinton did that make him as bad as Gingrich."
Unethical business standards, multiple affairs (which seems, oddly for a group that hates marriage like the Slog bunch, to be important only with respect to Gingrich) placing political points ahead of the national welfare- will these do for start, Matt old buddy old pal?
45
I always thought that Clinton's playing around was with tacit approval from HRC. I think she became pissed only when the affairs became public and she was made to look ridiculous. It always seemed that they had made some type of power couple bargain. Many more folks are monogamish than we know.
What makes Gingrich's playing around so much worse is not that he did it to a cancer-stricken wife or an MS-stricken wife (those are bad but that would not disqualify him from service in my mind - I believe the personal and the public can be separate) but because he jumps on the family value bandwagon. The closet changes but any politician who makes the private of the country HIS or HER business, exposes himself/herself to greater scrutiny. And that seems appropriate. I don't recall Clinton ever doing that so getting a BJ from Monica or fucking Paula Jones was his business (and HRC's).
What makes Gingrich's playing around so much worse is not that he did it to a cancer-stricken wife or an MS-stricken wife (those are bad but that would not disqualify him from service in my mind - I believe the personal and the public can be separate) but because he jumps on the family value bandwagon. The closet changes but any politician who makes the private of the country HIS or HER business, exposes himself/herself to greater scrutiny. And that seems appropriate. I don't recall Clinton ever doing that so getting a BJ from Monica or fucking Paula Jones was his business (and HRC's).
46
Acquittal: In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned.
The Senate acquitted Clinton. Therefore he is free of charge of perjury.
If the fact that he was impeached for perjury carries so much weight, then the fact of his acquittal is equally important, and ignoring it betrays your irrational feelings on the matter. Care to dispute that? Go ahead.
Say, why didn't you answer the second part of my comment?
The Senate acquitted Clinton. Therefore he is free of charge of perjury.
If the fact that he was impeached for perjury carries so much weight, then the fact of his acquittal is equally important, and ignoring it betrays your irrational feelings on the matter. Care to dispute that? Go ahead.
Say, why didn't you answer the second part of my comment?
47
@44
If not for the national outrage about SEX, the issue would never have gained enough support. If it weren't for the clever spin machine on the part of the Republicans making the issue all about sex, Clinton never would have been impeached in the first place.
See, 2 can play that game
If not for the national outrage about SEX, the issue would never have gained enough support. If it weren't for the clever spin machine on the part of the Republicans making the issue all about sex, Clinton never would have been impeached in the first place.
See, 2 can play that game
48
Furthermore, impeachment is the equivalent of indictment. The role of the House is essentially as a grand jury, to determine if an actual trial has sufficient standing to proceed. A vote for impeachment isn't a vote of guilt, its a vote to continue on with proceedings.
The Senate then vote to determine guilt.
The Senate then vote to determine guilt.
49
"Whitewater" was (basically) a bust land deal where it was alleged that then-governor Clinton and/or his wife had illegally benefited. That was what the original IC was appointed to investigate. And they dug, and dug. There is no gainsaying the fact that Walsh and especially Starr checked pretty much everything down to the last staple, and there was pretty much zero evidence that either Clinton had done anything criminal or civilly unlawful. It was only when Starr (who was handpicked for the IC job in a very suspicious partisan fashion, and who failed to disclose that he had done legal consulting work for the Paula Jones lawyers) realized that the Clintons had done nothing unlawful that the focus of the now defacto resolved "Whitewater" investigation became all about sex and switched to Jones and later Lewinsky.
Seattleblues, trust me, if I had countless millions and the full cooperation of the FBI I could pin something on you, too. If you want a fair account, accepting neither side's BS I suggest that you read Ken Gormley's book "The Death of American Virtue".
http://www.amazon.com/Death-American-Vir…
NYT Review here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/books/…
In many ways, one can step back from the whole Dem/GOP/Starr/Clinton framing and see it simply as a question of the power of the state and the police. Even if you feel that Clinton did moral wrong in his affair, and even if you feel he did legal wrong by twisting/fibbing about it one can be genuinely horrified by the overkill of the investigation and the prosecution. One might compare it to grass, SB. You may agree with marijuana laws, but disagree with police using massive SWAT teams to kick in the door of a man's home hoping they find a joint.
More...
Again, had Clinton not been a disgusting piece of trash you couldn't trust around your daughter, Whitewater wouldn't have happened.The wording of this is interesting.
"Whitewater" was (basically) a bust land deal where it was alleged that then-governor Clinton and/or his wife had illegally benefited. That was what the original IC was appointed to investigate. And they dug, and dug. There is no gainsaying the fact that Walsh and especially Starr checked pretty much everything down to the last staple, and there was pretty much zero evidence that either Clinton had done anything criminal or civilly unlawful. It was only when Starr (who was handpicked for the IC job in a very suspicious partisan fashion, and who failed to disclose that he had done legal consulting work for the Paula Jones lawyers) realized that the Clintons had done nothing unlawful that the focus of the now defacto resolved "Whitewater" investigation became all about sex and switched to Jones and later Lewinsky.
Seattleblues, trust me, if I had countless millions and the full cooperation of the FBI I could pin something on you, too. If you want a fair account, accepting neither side's BS I suggest that you read Ken Gormley's book "The Death of American Virtue".
http://www.amazon.com/Death-American-Vir…
NYT Review here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/books/…
In many ways, one can step back from the whole Dem/GOP/Starr/Clinton framing and see it simply as a question of the power of the state and the police. Even if you feel that Clinton did moral wrong in his affair, and even if you feel he did legal wrong by twisting/fibbing about it one can be genuinely horrified by the overkill of the investigation and the prosecution. One might compare it to grass, SB. You may agree with marijuana laws, but disagree with police using massive SWAT teams to kick in the door of a man's home hoping they find a joint.
51
Interesting to note that Swingrich spends more than the first two minutes on how appalled he is that - in a Presidential debate - this is the question he's asked first.
Um, so how does the sequence go? Delay-deflect-deny. Yeah, sounds about right ... but oh-so-wrong.
Um, so how does the sequence go? Delay-deflect-deny. Yeah, sounds about right ... but oh-so-wrong.
52
Furthermore, impeachment is the equivalent of indictment. The role of the House is essentially as a grand jury, to determine if an actual trial has sufficient standing to proceed. A vote for impeachment isn't a vote of guilt, its a vote to continue on with proceedings.
The Senate then vote to determine guilt.
The Senate then vote to determine guilt.
53
LEAVE NEWT GINGRICH ALONE.... All he wants is MORE MORE MORE girlie girlie. YOU PEOPLE, Newt just dumped wife number two (sob), he has turned to GOD for forgiveness (sob), He wants Freedom and Market Capitalism at the expense of the poor (sob) and all he gets is Liberal Media bias! Leave Newt ALONE.
All praise Saint Crocker.
All praise Saint Crocker.
54
@47
No, you're wrong. Had Clinton not lied under oath, lied to Congress in testimony and suborned witnesses in an ongoing civil trial he would not have been impeached. That he lied about sex certainly gave it a gloss for the papers it wouldn't otherwise have had. But Clinton loaded the weapon used against him and handed it to his opponents, no-one else.
In the same vein Obama blames the opposition for opposing him. What about politics don't democrats understand? You think that if you give someone opposed to your worldview the means to stop you they won't do it? Seriously?
Here's the thing. After suit was filed by Paula Jones for inappropriate sexual behavior what does Mr. Clinton do? He cools it down, spends evenings at home with his family and generally tries to ease the image of philandering, right? No. He engages in inappropriate sexual behavior with yet another young woman for several months until his handlers have her shifted away from him to save him politically. This backfired, as her new post put her in contact with the supposed friend who taped her telephone confessions of sex with the president, but cooling it down was their intent. One of two things must have been true about Clinton. He entirely subsumed judgement and reason to his sexual urges and shouldn't have been entrusted with the power of the presidency. Or he was bone stupid and shouldn't have been entrusted with the presidency. In any case, he was and is a perjurer and criminal and should not have been allowed to continue as president on that ground.
Again, not defending Gingrich in any way. If you want to throw rocks about, living in glass house isn't the best idea. If he ruins his political and personal prospects due to his own hypocrisy it's no skin off my nose. But to compare him to Clinton, with Clinton as the innnocent of all things, is just stupid.
More...
No, you're wrong. Had Clinton not lied under oath, lied to Congress in testimony and suborned witnesses in an ongoing civil trial he would not have been impeached. That he lied about sex certainly gave it a gloss for the papers it wouldn't otherwise have had. But Clinton loaded the weapon used against him and handed it to his opponents, no-one else.
In the same vein Obama blames the opposition for opposing him. What about politics don't democrats understand? You think that if you give someone opposed to your worldview the means to stop you they won't do it? Seriously?
Here's the thing. After suit was filed by Paula Jones for inappropriate sexual behavior what does Mr. Clinton do? He cools it down, spends evenings at home with his family and generally tries to ease the image of philandering, right? No. He engages in inappropriate sexual behavior with yet another young woman for several months until his handlers have her shifted away from him to save him politically. This backfired, as her new post put her in contact with the supposed friend who taped her telephone confessions of sex with the president, but cooling it down was their intent. One of two things must have been true about Clinton. He entirely subsumed judgement and reason to his sexual urges and shouldn't have been entrusted with the power of the presidency. Or he was bone stupid and shouldn't have been entrusted with the presidency. In any case, he was and is a perjurer and criminal and should not have been allowed to continue as president on that ground.
Again, not defending Gingrich in any way. If you want to throw rocks about, living in glass house isn't the best idea. If he ruins his political and personal prospects due to his own hypocrisy it's no skin off my nose. But to compare him to Clinton, with Clinton as the innnocent of all things, is just stupid.
55
An angle that I think will be interesting:
If Republicans/Fox can tolerate an executive who serially cheats on their spouse...
...are they also ready to embrace the current Mrs. Gingrich as our saintly first lady? A woman whose now-most prominent accomplishment is being an adulterer with Newt?
If Republicans/Fox can tolerate an executive who serially cheats on their spouse...
...are they also ready to embrace the current Mrs. Gingrich as our saintly first lady? A woman whose now-most prominent accomplishment is being an adulterer with Newt?
56
Now everybody is ganging up on my pal, Seattleblues. And I have to admit that he's a little bit at fault here. After all, the issue is Newt Gingrich, not Bill Clinton. As despicable as Clinton is, he's not the one been caught with his pants down. Not this time, anyway. And all of Seattleblue's arguments, when you think about it, come down to, "Yeah, well you're guy's another." I hear my grandchildren say this kind of thing all the time, and it don't make a lick of sense when they say it, and it don't make a lick of sense here.
Here's how I see things. There's a right way, and a wrong way to do things, and in the case of Gingrich, he's done some things the wrong way.
Back when I was young, a man and a woman swore "till death us do part," and we stuck to that. Sometimes the marriage didn't work out, of course, so generally the woman would go visit an aunt out of state, and say that the aunt was sick and that she was there to help her during the illness. And the man, well, he might start something on the side with his secretary, if he lived in town. If he lived in the country, maybe he'd go visit the quarters from time to time, and a lot of men did that, even though it meant that there was a risk of some yellow babies, and that was always regrettable, but it still happened a lot less than it does now, when I can't bring my grandchildren to Wal-Mart without seeing all kinds of misegenation. But I don't want to get sidetracked, because the point I'm making is that, the way I was raised, the man and wife stayed married, and if somebody had something going on the side, well, everybody just looked the other way, and that was what was important, because they were honoring the marriage.
Now Newt, well it pains me to say this, but he's done it all wrong. He's spent his whole life going from one wife to the other just like he was trading in for new cars. And that's not how marriage is supposed to work. He came closer to getting it right when he was married to number two and having a bit on the side with Calista (and she's a real pretty woman, ain't she?). That went on for six years, and it seems to me that it would of been best all around if they had just kept that up. But he didn't honor the marriage the way he should have, and that's just not right.
That's why my vote is going to Mitt or Rick or Ron Paul. These are three men who understand how things is supposed to be done.
More...
Here's how I see things. There's a right way, and a wrong way to do things, and in the case of Gingrich, he's done some things the wrong way.
Back when I was young, a man and a woman swore "till death us do part," and we stuck to that. Sometimes the marriage didn't work out, of course, so generally the woman would go visit an aunt out of state, and say that the aunt was sick and that she was there to help her during the illness. And the man, well, he might start something on the side with his secretary, if he lived in town. If he lived in the country, maybe he'd go visit the quarters from time to time, and a lot of men did that, even though it meant that there was a risk of some yellow babies, and that was always regrettable, but it still happened a lot less than it does now, when I can't bring my grandchildren to Wal-Mart without seeing all kinds of misegenation. But I don't want to get sidetracked, because the point I'm making is that, the way I was raised, the man and wife stayed married, and if somebody had something going on the side, well, everybody just looked the other way, and that was what was important, because they were honoring the marriage.
Now Newt, well it pains me to say this, but he's done it all wrong. He's spent his whole life going from one wife to the other just like he was trading in for new cars. And that's not how marriage is supposed to work. He came closer to getting it right when he was married to number two and having a bit on the side with Calista (and she's a real pretty woman, ain't she?). That went on for six years, and it seems to me that it would of been best all around if they had just kept that up. But he didn't honor the marriage the way he should have, and that's just not right.
That's why my vote is going to Mitt or Rick or Ron Paul. These are three men who understand how things is supposed to be done.
57
Say what you will about Bill Clinton but the Clintons are still married.
If the purpose of "family values" is to preserve the family unit - then clearly the Clintons have those values intact and in practice. So far.
Gingrinch is not only a serial adulter but more importantly one that destroyed each of his marriages in turn and left a wake of suffering and broken families.
The clincher: He did this all while hounding Clinton using the same "family values" criticism of Clintons' character.
Yes. We can compare the two men on "character", using the same ridiculously narrow framework the Right defines as "family values" mind you, and Clinton is STILL objectively the better man.
If the purpose of "family values" is to preserve the family unit - then clearly the Clintons have those values intact and in practice. So far.
Gingrinch is not only a serial adulter but more importantly one that destroyed each of his marriages in turn and left a wake of suffering and broken families.
The clincher: He did this all while hounding Clinton using the same "family values" criticism of Clintons' character.
Yes. We can compare the two men on "character", using the same ridiculously narrow framework the Right defines as "family values" mind you, and Clinton is STILL objectively the better man.
58
Aw, Seattleblues, what is this, the silent treatment? You didn't answer my post @ 46. Besides completely ignoring the fact of Clinton's acquittal, you only had offered opinions @ 44. Opinions shaped by deranged hatred, but without citing a single instance of anything fitting those opinions, don't count.
I could, for example, SB, say that YOU are guilty of unethical business practices. Why not? If you aren't going to cite a single instance when the Clintons allegedly did that, my charge is every bit as fair.
I like your tortured logic in equating Gingrich's adultery to what may well be Clinton's monogamish lifestyle. If you think our acceptance of Clinton's indiscretions somehow makes our criticisms of Gingrich hypocritical, you might wonder address why we should discount Hillary's forgiveness (as her continued marriage to Bill, now in its 14th year since his affair became public, can only represent)? That's the only way the two men's affairs become comparable.
I could, for example, SB, say that YOU are guilty of unethical business practices. Why not? If you aren't going to cite a single instance when the Clintons allegedly did that, my charge is every bit as fair.
I like your tortured logic in equating Gingrich's adultery to what may well be Clinton's monogamish lifestyle. If you think our acceptance of Clinton's indiscretions somehow makes our criticisms of Gingrich hypocritical, you might wonder address why we should discount Hillary's forgiveness (as her continued marriage to Bill, now in its 14th year since his affair became public, can only represent)? That's the only way the two men's affairs become comparable.
59
@ 58
Well, for once you're close Mile High Matt.
The two mens affairs are the same. They make both men unworthy of trust of any kind. They are evidence of bad character, of an inability to hew to a course of the most basic integrity and honor. These gentlemen shouldn't be entrusted with the management of a coffee stand, never mind the federal government.
The important thing is in how they're different, not in how they're similar. Clintons inability to exercise basic sexual self control led him into felonies while Gingriches are only evidence of his bad character at least so far.
As for unethical business practices, I don't have the time to get into the Clintons shady doings. That could be a course in an MBA in how NOT to do business. But for a starting point, you might look into a business lawyer pleading ignorance of SEC regulations in her trading. Just a bit difficult to believe for this good old boy.
@57
To claim that Clintons behavior didn't affect his wife and daughter negatively, never mind the other women involved, is naive in the extreme, no matter whether he and Mrs. Clinton are technically still married. Just possibly Mrs Clinton had made a cold bargain in which her loveless relationship with her husband was compensated with political power. Their daughter made no such bargain. Ms. Lewinsky has to live with being a presidents' sexual indiscretion and a national joke for the rest of her life. God knows how many other women Clintons treated badly in his life.
You can put the fellow up for sainthood all you like, and pretend Gingrich was more destructive by some incremental degree in his behavior, but I'm not buying it.
@On topic
Curious that not a single lefty has noted that a hostile ex wife may possibly not be the best source for the unbiased truth of her ex husband.
Though she would appear to have reason to be hostile, taking her statements at face value is a bit interesting as a journalistic practice.
Just sayin'...
More...
Well, for once you're close Mile High Matt.
The two mens affairs are the same. They make both men unworthy of trust of any kind. They are evidence of bad character, of an inability to hew to a course of the most basic integrity and honor. These gentlemen shouldn't be entrusted with the management of a coffee stand, never mind the federal government.
The important thing is in how they're different, not in how they're similar. Clintons inability to exercise basic sexual self control led him into felonies while Gingriches are only evidence of his bad character at least so far.
As for unethical business practices, I don't have the time to get into the Clintons shady doings. That could be a course in an MBA in how NOT to do business. But for a starting point, you might look into a business lawyer pleading ignorance of SEC regulations in her trading. Just a bit difficult to believe for this good old boy.
@57
To claim that Clintons behavior didn't affect his wife and daughter negatively, never mind the other women involved, is naive in the extreme, no matter whether he and Mrs. Clinton are technically still married. Just possibly Mrs Clinton had made a cold bargain in which her loveless relationship with her husband was compensated with political power. Their daughter made no such bargain. Ms. Lewinsky has to live with being a presidents' sexual indiscretion and a national joke for the rest of her life. God knows how many other women Clintons treated badly in his life.
You can put the fellow up for sainthood all you like, and pretend Gingrich was more destructive by some incremental degree in his behavior, but I'm not buying it.
@On topic
Curious that not a single lefty has noted that a hostile ex wife may possibly not be the best source for the unbiased truth of her ex husband.
Though she would appear to have reason to be hostile, taking her statements at face value is a bit interesting as a journalistic practice.
Just sayin'...
60
@58
"I like your tortured logic in equating Gingrich's adultery to what may well be Clinton's monogamish lifestyle."
fyi-
Here in the real world of decent human beings who value their marriages we have different words for 'monogamish.' Adultery. Or cheating scumbag. Worthless steaming pile of dung. Whichever you like.
"I like your tortured logic in equating Gingrich's adultery to what may well be Clinton's monogamish lifestyle."
fyi-
Here in the real world of decent human beings who value their marriages we have different words for 'monogamish.' Adultery. Or cheating scumbag. Worthless steaming pile of dung. Whichever you like.
61
Oh dear, I do hope the highly theoretical Mrs. Seattleblahs is also a member of the "real world". If I were her, I know I'd need some sort of escape from the non-stop bloviating and moralizing she must be subjected to, day in day out, year after dull year.
You are keeping her satisfied in the boudoir, aren't you, Seattleblahs? That can go a long way towards excusing boorish behavior.
You are keeping her satisfied in the boudoir, aren't you, Seattleblahs? That can go a long way towards excusing boorish behavior.
62
Oh, SB, I love how you know better than the Clintons how their own marriage should work. It doesn't matter if Bill's affairs are alright with Hillary; they're just bad.
I like this line from your other post:
"I don't have the time to get into the Clintons shady doings."
Which means that you have nothing. I didn't ask for a complete dossier; one single example, something I could google, would have sufficed.
Oh, and "felonies?" ACQUITTAL doesn't mean anything when Bill Clinton is the accused, does it? He's just the devil to you. (Can perjury of that kind be a felony anyway?)
I like this line from your other post:
"I don't have the time to get into the Clintons shady doings."
Which means that you have nothing. I didn't ask for a complete dossier; one single example, something I could google, would have sufficed.
Oh, and "felonies?" ACQUITTAL doesn't mean anything when Bill Clinton is the accused, does it? He's just the devil to you. (Can perjury of that kind be a felony anyway?)
64
Apparently "Traditional Marriage (TM)" now means "anything that doesn't involve two men". In other words, it's like "those people" and "God-fearing Christian". What's that called again? A weasel word?
65
@59: Bill Clinton is a felon?
You are a caecilian.
There is just as much evidence for one as for the other.
Also, come back to the thread about the internet winning and take your medicine. YOU CAN'T IGNORE MY GIRTH.
You are a caecilian.
There is just as much evidence for one as for the other.
Also, come back to the thread about the internet winning and take your medicine. YOU CAN'T IGNORE MY GIRTH.
66
We're due to fly to Italy in the morning, and I can't sleep on flights if I sleep the night before so a late and last post for a few weeks-
Matt, you don't understand the legal system or the idea behind impeachment.
Within our legal system a person can be tried civilly, criminally or in the case of an elected official impeached. They are all different.
The Common Law is an excellent book by Holmes, as well as the underlying system on which we operate, inherited from our British forebears. It's fairly unique, since most of Europe uses a civil law system as well, oddly, as Louisianna. Broadly we break court proceedings into two categories, civil and criminal under our formulation of the common law.
Civilly anyone could be sued by anyone else who can establish standing, but no jail or prison time accompanies a civil verdict. The court acts as referee in a private dispute, with no criminal sanctions applied. A person can be jailed on procedural things like contempt in civil matters, but not as part of the verdict. One of Bill Clintons lasting triumphs is to be the first sitting president to be part of a civil matter for sexual harassment, with the precedent setting court case to establish that a president can be sued. Go Billy Boy!
We also hold individuals to account for misdemeanor or felonious behavior. To do this we'd try them in a criminal court. The court acts as referee but the government acts as prosecutor as well. If found guilty a person could be given a sentence from a fine to jail to prison. (Usually jail is less than one year sentenced, while prison is more than one year. A felony generally is considered anything that could carry a prison sentence. A misdemeanor would mean at most a jail sentence, less than a year.)
An impeachment is the House of Representatives formally asserting that an officeholder demeaned or damaged his or her office by their conduct. At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The articles of impeachment need not assert criminality, though they did with respect to Clinton. They only need to demonstrate the prima facia unfitness for office of the accused within the terms of Article 4. If impeached, the case goes to the Senate for trial. A 2/3 majority of the Senate is required to remove the accused from office, a threshold not met with Clinton. The Senate does not determine criminality, just whether they believe the articles of impeachment are substantially accurate and merit removal from office.
In impeachment, since criminality or the lack thereof isn't the finding, saying that impeachment trials exonerates someone or finds them criminally liable is innacurate. With Clinton for example he evaded prosecution criminally after impeachment by a plea bargain in which he was disbarred for 5 years, ending in 2006. Otherwise he very likely would have been convicted of perjury and lost the possibility of practicing law altogether. The impeachment had little bearing of any kind on this plea arrangement, and no evidentiary bearing. However a plea agreement, even an Alford plea, is a de facto admission of guilt. In fairness plea arrangements are often used by those who feel themselves innocent but unable to afford the costs of attorneys and so on in minor cases, or who feel that the evidence will convict them whatever they believe about their innocence. It is however impossible to plea without the court instructing you that you are admitting guilt.
Hope this helps. Have a nice day.
More...
Matt, you don't understand the legal system or the idea behind impeachment.
Within our legal system a person can be tried civilly, criminally or in the case of an elected official impeached. They are all different.
The Common Law is an excellent book by Holmes, as well as the underlying system on which we operate, inherited from our British forebears. It's fairly unique, since most of Europe uses a civil law system as well, oddly, as Louisianna. Broadly we break court proceedings into two categories, civil and criminal under our formulation of the common law.
Civilly anyone could be sued by anyone else who can establish standing, but no jail or prison time accompanies a civil verdict. The court acts as referee in a private dispute, with no criminal sanctions applied. A person can be jailed on procedural things like contempt in civil matters, but not as part of the verdict. One of Bill Clintons lasting triumphs is to be the first sitting president to be part of a civil matter for sexual harassment, with the precedent setting court case to establish that a president can be sued. Go Billy Boy!
We also hold individuals to account for misdemeanor or felonious behavior. To do this we'd try them in a criminal court. The court acts as referee but the government acts as prosecutor as well. If found guilty a person could be given a sentence from a fine to jail to prison. (Usually jail is less than one year sentenced, while prison is more than one year. A felony generally is considered anything that could carry a prison sentence. A misdemeanor would mean at most a jail sentence, less than a year.)
An impeachment is the House of Representatives formally asserting that an officeholder demeaned or damaged his or her office by their conduct. At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The articles of impeachment need not assert criminality, though they did with respect to Clinton. They only need to demonstrate the prima facia unfitness for office of the accused within the terms of Article 4. If impeached, the case goes to the Senate for trial. A 2/3 majority of the Senate is required to remove the accused from office, a threshold not met with Clinton. The Senate does not determine criminality, just whether they believe the articles of impeachment are substantially accurate and merit removal from office.
In impeachment, since criminality or the lack thereof isn't the finding, saying that impeachment trials exonerates someone or finds them criminally liable is innacurate. With Clinton for example he evaded prosecution criminally after impeachment by a plea bargain in which he was disbarred for 5 years, ending in 2006. Otherwise he very likely would have been convicted of perjury and lost the possibility of practicing law altogether. The impeachment had little bearing of any kind on this plea arrangement, and no evidentiary bearing. However a plea agreement, even an Alford plea, is a de facto admission of guilt. In fairness plea arrangements are often used by those who feel themselves innocent but unable to afford the costs of attorneys and so on in minor cases, or who feel that the evidence will convict them whatever they believe about their innocence. It is however impossible to plea without the court instructing you that you are admitting guilt.
Hope this helps. Have a nice day.
67
@66: Please point out where Bill Clinton was convicted of a felony. Your argument so far has been that Bill Clinton is guilty because it was an impeachment court that acquitted him.
68
I like how everyone's ignoring the obvious hypocrisy. Thomas Jefferson had multiple affairs with...
Oh, hang on. Thomas Jefferson isn't a candidate any more. Like Bill Clinton.
Oh, hang on. Thomas Jefferson isn't a candidate any more. Like Bill Clinton.
69
Politicians will always make hypocritical or self-serving arguments. They don't always get applauded for them.
In other words, this says something about at least that part of the Republican base, more than it says something about Newt Gingrich.
I think what it says is that they have an ethical standard that they proclaim, and an ethical standard that they actually believe.
The theoretical standard, I'd suggest, would be "thou shalt not commit adultery"; the actual standard something like "thou shalt be on our side in the culture war".
You have to outwardly proclaim belief in certain things, and if you don't follow them you have to do that secretly (have an affair) rather than openly (have an open marriage, or stay single and tell reporters that you're sexually active).
So yes, he's essentially saying "how dare you call my hypocrisy into question?" But it's hypocrisy that his audience approves of. And of course they wouldn't see it as hypocrisy, but as something like 'he's basically a good man in spite of having done bad things'.
In other words, this says something about at least that part of the Republican base, more than it says something about Newt Gingrich.
I think what it says is that they have an ethical standard that they proclaim, and an ethical standard that they actually believe.
The theoretical standard, I'd suggest, would be "thou shalt not commit adultery"; the actual standard something like "thou shalt be on our side in the culture war".
You have to outwardly proclaim belief in certain things, and if you don't follow them you have to do that secretly (have an affair) rather than openly (have an open marriage, or stay single and tell reporters that you're sexually active).
So yes, he's essentially saying "how dare you call my hypocrisy into question?" But it's hypocrisy that his audience approves of. And of course they wouldn't see it as hypocrisy, but as something like 'he's basically a good man in spite of having done bad things'.
71
PS From 69,
and of course the other theoretical/actual ethics, where in theory men having heterosexual affairs is a sin just like homosexuality, but in practice it isn't.
and of course the other theoretical/actual ethics, where in theory men having heterosexual affairs is a sin just like homosexuality, but in practice it isn't.
72
@ 66, I know you believe you know this stuff better than anyone here, and I'm sure you impress yourself when you write out long posts like this. But there's no point to it because... it doesn't make you right. You see, it boils down to this: you're basically saying that impeachment is where Clinton was found guilty. That just being impeached proves he was unfit for office. Which makes no sense because, were that the case, he'd have been removed from office automatically.
Yeah, yeah, he needn't have broken the law. Well, so what? They alleged he was unfit for office. But it was up to the Senate to say, "you're right, he is, let's oust him."
Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. It is the equivalent of being acquitted by a jury. Simply saying "criminality isn't necessary for impeachment" doesn't wipe out the equivalency of the whole proceeding to a prosecution. You're grasping at straws there.
The Senate found there wasn't enough to prove he was unfit for office. The word they use for that is the same in criminal trial - "acquittal." Why would it mean "exoneration" in one legal setting but mean "the bastard is guilty but we're letting him stay in office" on the other?
Um, no.
The whole thing was a political farce.
While you're in Italy (and I know you'll have read this, and can reply if you choose), think about the false things you've resort to saying in these debates - about Clinton being a felon, about his bad business practices (how'd you find the time for such a long post when you "didn't have time" to even find one example, as I made clear was all that was necessary), and all the other baloney. Think about what that means about how you arrive at your conclusions and how you conduct yourself here. I think you'll find it difficult but ultimately rewarding.
More...
Yeah, yeah, he needn't have broken the law. Well, so what? They alleged he was unfit for office. But it was up to the Senate to say, "you're right, he is, let's oust him."
Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. It is the equivalent of being acquitted by a jury. Simply saying "criminality isn't necessary for impeachment" doesn't wipe out the equivalency of the whole proceeding to a prosecution. You're grasping at straws there.
The Senate found there wasn't enough to prove he was unfit for office. The word they use for that is the same in criminal trial - "acquittal." Why would it mean "exoneration" in one legal setting but mean "the bastard is guilty but we're letting him stay in office" on the other?
Um, no.
The whole thing was a political farce.
While you're in Italy (and I know you'll have read this, and can reply if you choose), think about the false things you've resort to saying in these debates - about Clinton being a felon, about his bad business practices (how'd you find the time for such a long post when you "didn't have time" to even find one example, as I made clear was all that was necessary), and all the other baloney. Think about what that means about how you arrive at your conclusions and how you conduct yourself here. I think you'll find it difficult but ultimately rewarding.
73
@ 68, that's just SB for you. He's a great representative of the "your side did it too!" school of conservative debate. I like taking him on because it's very satisfying to beat these people at their own game. (If you don't play along, they become convinced that it means they're right - that you won't take them on because you're scared of losing.)
But, SB at least came out and gave a tepid "I'm not defending Gingrich here" caveat. I'm sure he wasn't more definite about stating his condemnation because, if he isn't supporting Gingrich now, he's at least considering it (hardcore cons love fighters, and Newt's the nastiest one they have), and of course thinks any Republican, no matter how unfit, is better than any Democrat, no matter how competent and worthy.
But, SB at least came out and gave a tepid "I'm not defending Gingrich here" caveat. I'm sure he wasn't more definite about stating his condemnation because, if he isn't supporting Gingrich now, he's at least considering it (hardcore cons love fighters, and Newt's the nastiest one they have), and of course thinks any Republican, no matter how unfit, is better than any Democrat, no matter how competent and worthy.
75
While I absolutely despise Gnewt and rest of this crypto-feudalist plague, I tend to believe him when he says he didn't actually ask for an open relationship in so many words.
In his ex-wife's interview, while she seemed to be saying that, for all intents and purposes, he was "asking for" what amounted to an open relationship, he may not have ever actually said, "honey, I want an open relationship". He probably just said, "I love you, and I've got a great thing going with this other woman. Why can't I just go on behaving like a self-obsessed morally bankrupt swine, and have my cake and eat it, too?"
When she said, "He was asking for an open relationship", it was in response the interviewer asking her what she thought Gnewt was saying. It all depends on what your definition of "was" was.
So his assertion that the statement was false may be one of the only true things to come out of his mouth.
In his ex-wife's interview, while she seemed to be saying that, for all intents and purposes, he was "asking for" what amounted to an open relationship, he may not have ever actually said, "honey, I want an open relationship". He probably just said, "I love you, and I've got a great thing going with this other woman. Why can't I just go on behaving like a self-obsessed morally bankrupt swine, and have my cake and eat it, too?"
When she said, "He was asking for an open relationship", it was in response the interviewer asking her what she thought Gnewt was saying. It all depends on what your definition of "was" was.
So his assertion that the statement was false may be one of the only true things to come out of his mouth.
77
They're applauding the tribute he's paying to Virtue, fully aware that it's the sole such to expect from the likes of him.
(Note: his lustful ways are also fully in keeping with his living up to the G.O.P.'s image of an intellectual---the horny college professor who can rationalise any affair exists far too often in real life, but his range and frequency is dwarfed by that of his fantasy counterpart in their base's mind, where he occupies much the same space as a Frenchman: an arrogant smarty-pants faggy un-man who yet WANTS OUR WOMEN and for whom they fall, the dim-bulbs, damn 'em...wish we could just hang around MEN all the time.)
(Note: his lustful ways are also fully in keeping with his living up to the G.O.P.'s image of an intellectual---the horny college professor who can rationalise any affair exists far too often in real life, but his range and frequency is dwarfed by that of his fantasy counterpart in their base's mind, where he occupies much the same space as a Frenchman: an arrogant smarty-pants faggy un-man who yet WANTS OUR WOMEN and for whom they fall, the dim-bulbs, damn 'em...wish we could just hang around MEN all the time.)
79
There is nothing pompous old white men won't justify for themselves, no matter how vile they may insist it is in others. Santorum's abortion, Gingrich's cheating, McCain's gung-ho torture apologetics... nothing. They're purest hypocrites.
81
I must say that SB's position on the Clinton impeachment is amusing:
* the impeachment in the House (i.e. the political indictment) is proof that Clinton committed the crimes alleged;
* the acquittal in the Senate (i.e. the acquittal at trial) is NOT proof that he committed no crime.
* the impeachment in the House (i.e. the political indictment) is proof that Clinton committed the crimes alleged;
* the acquittal in the Senate (i.e. the acquittal at trial) is NOT proof that he committed no crime.
82
Here is a quote from Newt Gingrich given to the NYTimes by a friend of his. At the time that he was divorcing his first wife, Jackie, who had been his high school geometry teacher.
" A few weeks before Mr. Gingrich filed for divorce, he called his political aide and friend Mr. Carter to talk about his marriage. Mr. Carter said he and other friends had been worried that the marriage was falling apart. Mr. Gingrich told him why he wanted a divorce. "He said: 'She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer.' It sounds harsh and hokey, but anyone who knows him knows it's perfectly consistent with the kinds of things he says." Read the whole article here: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/24/us/gin….
The article goes on to report that Gingrich did not pay either alimony or child support, despite the fact that Jackie had paid for his education and supported him through the first years of their marriage. Friends had to take up a collection to help her provide for her children at that time.
Six months after the infamous hospital room meeting following Jackie's surgery to treat uterine cancer, he was married to Marianne Gingrich, who, recently diagnosed with MS, would similarly have been unable to cut the muster as First Lady.
" A few weeks before Mr. Gingrich filed for divorce, he called his political aide and friend Mr. Carter to talk about his marriage. Mr. Carter said he and other friends had been worried that the marriage was falling apart. Mr. Gingrich told him why he wanted a divorce. "He said: 'She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer.' It sounds harsh and hokey, but anyone who knows him knows it's perfectly consistent with the kinds of things he says." Read the whole article here: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/24/us/gin….
The article goes on to report that Gingrich did not pay either alimony or child support, despite the fact that Jackie had paid for his education and supported him through the first years of their marriage. Friends had to take up a collection to help her provide for her children at that time.
Six months after the infamous hospital room meeting following Jackie's surgery to treat uterine cancer, he was married to Marianne Gingrich, who, recently diagnosed with MS, would similarly have been unable to cut the muster as First Lady.
84
I'd rather vote for a socialist than Newt. I can't... because Obama is not a socialist. But if he were, I'd rather vote for him. And I will vote for him, not because he is a socialist, because he isn't... a socialist that is.
85
Maybe because his biological mom left his dad after 3 days of marriage, Newt Gingrich is confused about what a marriage commitment requires. His own lesbian sister Candace has said:
"We're completely in disagreement on 90 percent of the issues. No, I wouldn't vote for him.
Newt pretends like he is tea party outsider and has big ideas to generate jobs for America like black kids cleaning toilets as school janitors. Yet he is the fat cat crony sucking at the teat of insider connections in Washington to earns millions as a lobbyist for freddie mac and insurance companies.
Should a man with a $500,000 line of credit at Tiffanys be lecturing us on how to reduce government spending and claim to be a fiscal conservative ?
Maybe Newt will replace RIck Perry's famous 3rd agency of government with a jewelry store for his wife ? Does cheating on 2 ex wives make him an expert of family values and favorite of evangelicals everywhere ?
He is just as much of a phoney conservative as Mitt , but because nasty Newt is better at attacking the liberal media , he is the front runner for people who want a loud voice to echo their internal voice that says poor people are lazy
( Ask Paul Farmer for a more informed opinion on that idea ), and other hare brained ideas that have zero chance to actually make any material difference for the lives of millions of Americans.
Going back to some idealized version of Reaganomics is another pipedream that some folks would love to believe. Newt is not the solution, Newt is the problem. Or at least WARNING of a shipwreck ahead if he ever gets near the captains bridge of Cruise ship America.
See more on Newt at these links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/opinio…
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/24/us/gin…
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-03…
More...
"We're completely in disagreement on 90 percent of the issues. No, I wouldn't vote for him.
Newt pretends like he is tea party outsider and has big ideas to generate jobs for America like black kids cleaning toilets as school janitors. Yet he is the fat cat crony sucking at the teat of insider connections in Washington to earns millions as a lobbyist for freddie mac and insurance companies.
Should a man with a $500,000 line of credit at Tiffanys be lecturing us on how to reduce government spending and claim to be a fiscal conservative ?
Maybe Newt will replace RIck Perry's famous 3rd agency of government with a jewelry store for his wife ? Does cheating on 2 ex wives make him an expert of family values and favorite of evangelicals everywhere ?
He is just as much of a phoney conservative as Mitt , but because nasty Newt is better at attacking the liberal media , he is the front runner for people who want a loud voice to echo their internal voice that says poor people are lazy
( Ask Paul Farmer for a more informed opinion on that idea ), and other hare brained ideas that have zero chance to actually make any material difference for the lives of millions of Americans.
Going back to some idealized version of Reaganomics is another pipedream that some folks would love to believe. Newt is not the solution, Newt is the problem. Or at least WARNING of a shipwreck ahead if he ever gets near the captains bridge of Cruise ship America.
See more on Newt at these links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/opinio…
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/24/us/gin…
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-03…
86
33/40: I was a lawyer in a fortune 500 company. I saw high level executives get canned for far, far less than Clinton. EVP level.
So, yeah, I have seen it with my own eyes...and wrote the termination letters in some cases. Life is different now than it was in your daddy's day. Just letting you know.
So, yeah, I have seen it with my own eyes...and wrote the termination letters in some cases. Life is different now than it was in your daddy's day. Just letting you know.
87
46/58: You don't understand: impeachment =/= criminal trial.
Clinton was not tried criminally. He was impeached. It is not a criminal proceeding, it is a political one.
Also Wiki speaketh thus: "In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.
Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
'Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false....'
In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel[clarification needed] to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign."
For a lawyer, it is a Big. Big. F-ing. Deal. to lose your license. To agree to it is a rather large admission, frankly.
He perjured himself. Whether he deserved all he got done to him in Congress is a different debate.
Clinton was not tried criminally. He was impeached. It is not a criminal proceeding, it is a political one.
Also Wiki speaketh thus: "In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.
Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
'Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false....'
In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel[clarification needed] to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign."
For a lawyer, it is a Big. Big. F-ing. Deal. to lose your license. To agree to it is a rather large admission, frankly.
He perjured himself. Whether he deserved all he got done to him in Congress is a different debate.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (87) RSS