Gingrich Admits Affair During Clinton Probe

Newt Gingrich comes clean and tells Focus on the Family that while he was calling for President Clinton's impeachment, he was in the midst of an extra-marital affair. (He has since married his flame, Callista, pictured with him above.)

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

How does he differentiate himself from Clinton? He says he didn't commit perjury.


"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."

So I guess he won't be one of those calling for a pardon of Scooter Libby, right?

As I've said before, there's no cutting Newt Gingrich any slack on this site. I've been warning about how dangerous he is since 1995 and his Contract On America.

Update: Here's lots more detail on Newt's serial adultery, which I wrote back in 2002, compiled from news sources available on Lexis.
< Dick Cheney On Trial | Bills Introduced to Restore Rights to Detainees >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Archives, anyone? (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:20:43 PM EST
    I'm willing to bet there are many things Mr. Gingrich said about Mr. Clinton at the time--things that were printed in the newspapers--that weren't about perjury, but about morality.

    And (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by baba durag on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:25:30 PM EST
    that were things Gingy was projecting.  Like, say, adultery.

    Oy vey (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by baba durag on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:19:16 PM EST
    How come this isn't as surprising as I might expect.  If Gingrich stood on tip toes and reached as high as he could, he might just be able to touch despicable.  Lower than a snakes belly.  But then, we knew that already.

    Imagine the hubris of someone who could a) do that, and b) expect that he has a chance in hell at becoming the leading light of the Republic Party - their Presidential candidate too.

    Simply breathtaking.

    ya gotta give the newtster credit (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:29:30 PM EST
    the man has brass ones! and the best part of all is that he'll get a free pass, from both his "conservative" bretheran, and the MSM. they, like the newtmeister, will rationlize his obvious hypocrisy away, like so much mud in the rain.

    "yeah, i did it, but I didn't get caught!" this, of course, makes it all better.

    ya gotta love the guy!

    yuk (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    There is no accounting for poor taste.

    offtopic (none / 0) (#2)
    by chickens on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:52:35 PM EST
    Question: what would have happened if the jury had come back with guilty on 4 out of 5 counts but could not come to a decision on the fifth count?

    Can the jury do that? What happens in that case.

    I have a suspicion, based little, that the jury just gave up on that 5th count, rationalizing that "hey 4 out of 5 guilty, lets just forget about this 5th count since we are having such a hard time with it". That is I am thinking that if Libby were only brought up on that one count, then they would have convicted or been a hung jury. This is based on the account that at one point there was 9 for guilty and only 2 opposed. I don't see how you come back from that with a not guilty verdict.

    Anyway, I guess it doesn't really matter that much. Just curious.

    in that case (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:59:54 PM EST
    they would have had guilty verdicts on four counts and a hung jury on one count.  The Government would then have the option of retrying him on that one count. It would not have affected the guilty verdicts on the four counts.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#4)
    by chickens on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:10:51 PM EST
    Would the jury have know this?

    btw - They seem like a very smart jury, and I am not meaning to demean their work.

    Does it not seem weird that the vote goes from 2-9 to 11-0 ?


    I think they went (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:18:09 PM EST
    from 9 to 2 to 11 to 0.

    Gingrich... (none / 0) (#9)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:10:35 AM EST
    argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite...

    Of course not. Newtie stinks worse than a week old corpse in the Juarez sun.

    By all means, run for POTUS (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:47:38 AM EST
    We could use the entertainment.

    It wasn't about ruining Clinton. It was about taking power. Stripping it from the opposition, taking it, and keeping it.

    It's not personal. The whole political arena is filled with hypocrites like Ginrich. He's just cleaning house before the campaign. Just like Obama and his parking tickets. But Obama will be branded the hypocrite, because everyone already knows that Newt is one. He's proven it time and time again.

    Fashion??? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Timada on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:34:32 PM EST
    Look like all the politicians get so stressed ruining the country that they need some other women to cheer them up. They are during such a hard work at their office that no one else could do. Maybe I am mean, but it looks like adultery become a fashion between politicians.  They should better check out firs for tips that tell you how to save your marriage, and after that decide if a new woman should appear in their lives.