Ok, I am confused.
Gingrich said witness were offered, weren’t his daughters witnesses?
So how is Gingrich’s statement witness were offered a lie?
—Ok, I am confused.
Gingrich said witness were offered, weren’t his daughters witnesses?
So how is Gingrich’s statement witness were offered a lie?—
That is exactly what I was wondering. You saved me having to cut and paste from the article. Thank you. :-)
Newt specifically said several personal friends were willing to come forward. That's the part that wasn't true -- only his daughters were available to ABC.
Even as a Newt supporter, it's pretty clear to me in the videos. I don't know how the rest of you are missing that.
Something doesn't make sense.
Yep, they are playing with words and third-party inferences (e.g., most people may be ready to produce affidavits confirming the account, but not necessarily "offer to do an interview" with ABC, etc.).
It's not surprising that WaPo's Politico is using words and snippets that will try to exonerate one of their own media (CNN, ABC etc.) "reporters" to continue the "Newt lied" meme, while the story itself has been public, so it didn't even need all the commotion. Talk about tempest in a tea pot:
From No-Fault Newt - WSJ, by James Taranto, 2012 January 20
As Mrs. Gingrich told the story, the then-speaker informed her over the phone that he wanted a divorce. "I said to him, 'Newt, we've been married a long time.' And he said, 'Yes. But you want me all to yourself. Callista doesn't care what I do.' "
Mrs. Gingrich: "Oh, he was asking to have an open marriage and I refused."
There is also evidence that the Gingriches' marriage had been troubled for years before the split. National Review's Robert Costa notes a 1999 Associated Press report on their separation, which revealed some background:
Gingrich, he said, came back to Georgia to find his home emptied out. Browning said the pair maintained separate residences for six years ..... < snip > < snip > ..... The interview aired on "Nightline" some 90 minutes after the debate ended, and the bombshell turned out to be a dud. The supposed big revelation — that "he wanted an open marriage," as she, not he, put it — turned out in context to be trivial.
< snip > ..... It's unclear from Marianne Gingrich's account whether Mr. Gingrich actually offered to remain married in exchange for tolerance of his infidelity, or if this was merely her inference. In either case, there is an enormous difference between offering such an arrangement as a "compromise" to a spouse who does not wish to divorce, which is what Mr. Gingrich appears to have done, and flat-out asking for an open marriage.
Gingrich met and started dating Callista (with intent to marry after finalizing the divorce) in 1993, 6 years after separation from Marianne (so Callista was not a "home-wrecker" or a "chased intern"), just when he was busy launching the Gingrich Revolution of 1994 and working on passing Contract With America and welfare and other reforms, while fighting 84 frivolous unfounded ethics charges, which took most of 1995-1998. Newt hardly had the time to finally settle his personal life by going through the divorce with Marianne (ex-wife-to-be) and marrying Callista (wife-in-waiting), which he did immediately upon resigning from Congress.
In contrast, during the same period of time, Marianne (who was financially supported by Newt all through the separation, with all the assets - earned by Newt from books and speeches - held in the accounts in her name) was openly saying how she would undermine and destroy Gingrich's career "with one interview" if he dared leave her and run for higher office. Some "wife" she was, eh?
I can only assume but, if anything, I doubt that since 1993 Newt has ever "cheated" on his bride-to-be Callista with his wife-on-paper ex-wife-to-be Marianne.
More timeline / chronology, ref:
The Inner Quest of Newt Gingrich (1995: Marianne Promised To "Undermine Everything" For Newt) - FR, post #143, 2012 January 18