Newt Gingrich is A Corrupt, Evil Lunatic!

atlascott's picture
Submitted by atlascott on Sat, 2012-02-25 21:08

Here he is, the fake Conservative egomaniac:

[In the book] "Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them", [I] "found frightening pieces that related to my own life." - Newt.

"I think you can write a psychological profile of me that says I found a way to immerse my insecurities in a cause large enough to justify whatever I wanted it to." - Newt, speaking to Gail Sheehy.

"She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife. And besides, she has cancer." - Newt, on his first wife (Jackie, his high school teacher)

"[I was] very lonely, very driven, and pretty weird as a kid." -- Newt

"It doesn't matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live." - Newt, as he dumped his second wife for a younger, healthier woman

"Fannie Mae is an excellent example of a former government institution fulfilling its mandate while functioning in the market economy.” -- Newt, 1995


Ron Paul Double-Dipping of Funds Scandal

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo asked me if Ron Paul ever had an ethics problems. Well, as luck should have it, he is in the midst of a scandal right now, which we can compare with Gingrich's ethical issues next.

Roll Call did an investigation and uncovered that Ron Paul had been double-dipping on charges for his flights. First it was 26 flights totaling $15,000. Then they uncovered 31 more where he was reimbursed by the taxpayer AND his PAC's and other organizations, and Ron Paul seems to have been aware of this happening.

His campaign's response? Well, they said the records were "stolen", which in no way disputes these alleged ethics violations. They also tried to excuse it as "inadvertant errors", which is a pretty tough claim for 57 flights.

As one can see from the second article, the guy, David James, running the non-profit "Liberty Committee" raised the issue with Ron Paul, and they had a falling out over it. The details are very interesting, especially the fact than when James refused to comply with his compensation demands, Ron Paul had his attorney send a letter to James telling him to stop using Ron Paul's name in connection with the committee.

James thinks that the documents uncovered by Roll Call show that Ron Paul was aware of the double-dipping, and it is hard to dispute otherwise given the fact that James brought it to his attention.

Was Ron Paul defrauding taxpayers AND the organizations supporting him? Certainly looks that way. Dishonesty seems to follow this guy everywhere!

Michael

Ron Paul, Chickenhawk?

Michael Moeller's picture

Well, now that I have established that Ron Paul levied a smear against Gingrich that was unsupported by the facts, let's take a look at his rather interesting military service.

He often refers to his military service by saying he "went" somewhere "in the 60's", which makes one think immediately of Vietnam. Or he brings it up in the context of the Cold War, like he did in the statement below quoted by Goode re the Cuban Missile Crisis. He makes it sound as if he was in a bunker taking shells. In fact, Desalvo apparently picked up on this and told us of the heroic deeds Ron Paul did in servicing fallen soldiers on the battlefield.

I found it very curious that I could not find anything on where he actually served during his military tenure. Wiki simply notes who he served with and when. With his rabid followers finely cultivating his biography to bring out every positive, it seems rather conspicuous that the details of his military are missing.

That is, until I came across this guy's research here and here.

It appears that this brave warrior who likes to refer to everybody else as a "chickenhawk" was safely tucked away in a hospital in the US. Oh, but it gets better.

According to the Air Force, Ron Paul could not have been drafted in 1962 as Ron Paul claims. Further, there does not seem to be any support for an option to serve in the Army or go into the Air Force as a doctor. The Air Force did claim that drafted some doctors in 1963, so perhaps he got the dates wrong and he was drafted in 1963.

I think the important point here is not whether he was drafted, but the timing. The US was building up for war in Vietnam, and Ron Paul was draft eligible. Whether or not he was given the option to enter the Army, his decision to go into the Air Force as a doctor would prevent him from serving in combat with the Army.

Furthermore, by switching to the Air National Guard in 1965, right when hostilities in Vietnam commenced, prevented him from go to Vietnam at all -- even as a doctor. Is that just a coincidence?

Maybe it is all coincidence and I would not bash Ron Paul for serving as a doctor in the military, but he is in no position to be calling anybody else a "chickenhawk".

Yes, I find it repulsive that he would use his military service to bash other candidates as "chickenhawks", even to the point of making up facts like he did against Gingrich.

Michael

New Gingrich campaign theme song

Richard Goode's picture

(Performed by a group of Los Angeles rioters, just to piss off Ron Paul.)

DeSalvo

Richard Goode's picture

You gave me quite the laugh on that one.

Can we solve it? Yes we can!

Richard Goode's picture

"When

Brant Gaede's picture

"When Lawyers Collide"--a movie coming soon, preview here.

None of the Republican candidates are worth much. Romney won't lose as badly as any of the others. Hence he's the frontrunner. Ron Paul understands the basic economics, but even if he were President he wouldn't implement much.

Better to have Obama re-elected so the tidal wave of economic pain washes over the Dems, not the hens.

--Brant

BTW...

Michael Moeller's picture

You should be booted. It has nothing to do with name-calling or anything of the sort. I could not care less about insults and whatnot.

However, you have from the very beginning done nothing but hurl character attacks because you do not have the facts, nor do you have the intellect to debate me.

Then you managed to make it worse. You ripped off quotes from a Paulbot website because you are too stupid and lazy to do your own research. You just grabbed the nearest weapon you could find and didn't bother to check that it was defective (I.e. falsely attributed quotes).

Ah, such sweet justice, as you can count on the dishonesty of Paulbots, and Desalvo stupidly counted on them for talking points and research.

Then, Desalvo not having the facts and being totally inept at arguing the facts, decides he will just start inventing facts. I didn't even cover all of them, and there are more I will get to. But how Desalvo could be so stupid as to starting rattling off invented facts and expect to get away with it is beyond me.

Well, he's been exposed threadbare as a fraud. Obvious to everybody, and it's up to Linz what he's gonna do about that.

Michael

Gingrich is being sued for copyright infringement

Richard Goode's picture

Newt Gingrich sued for using Eye of the Tiger as campaign song

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich faces a lawsuit over his use of Eye of the Tiger, the theme song to the movie Rocky III, court documents show.

The claim for copyright infringement, lodged on Monday by Rude Music Inc in an Illinois federal court, relates to Gingrich's use of the song at his political rallies.

Rude Music Inc is owned by Frank Sullivan, who co-wrote the Grammy award-winning song. In addition to Gingrich, the complaint names as defendants his campaign, Newt 2012 Inc, and the American Conservative Union, an advocacy organisation.

The complaint states that the violation it alleges is intentional since Gingrich is "sophisticated and knowledgeable" concerning copyright laws.

Rude Music Inc has requested the court to order an end to unauthorised use of the song by the defendants, and to award Rude Music Inc damages.

A Gingrich campaign spokesman could not be reached for comment.

Ah...

Michael Moeller's picture

But everybody has seen the truth about you. You're a fraud who falsely attributes quotes and makes up facts in order to protect his True Believerism.

Everybody is also getting to see the depth of lies and deceptions emanating from Ron Paul and I ain't done yet, so hang onto your hats!

And Desalvo, don't worry about me covering the topics you have brought forth, except it won't be your half-assed treatment of the facts. It is all coming in due course. You can count on me exposing Ron Paul by comparison, rest assured, so you can go ahead and empty your liver of the lead.

Michael

Well...

atlascott's picture

It's what bullys do....

They expect their victims to concede, and so of course the punk seeks to have me booted.

Wouldn't want people to see the truth.

I will add: I have had 3 people contact me privately to congratulate on bloodying this punk on his constant, prissy deluge of bullshit.

And, please note, I answered his questions.

But he refuses to answer mine.

Instead, he seeks to silence the debate.

Fucking sissy maneuver.

The Despicable Evil that is Michael Moeller

Richard Goode's picture

I cannot have somebody routinely attacking my character in this manner.

Am I reading this correctly?!?!

I thought he had truly hit the depths of depravity.

And now he has sunk to a new and unimaginable low.

Undoubtedly the most immoral person I have ever seen on any internet forum, and this includes some really despicable characters.

Risible. And scummy.

Hots for teacher

Richard Goode's picture

Linz ... Desalvo simply has to go

When the bully's victims unexpectedly give as good as they get, the bully goes running to the teacher.

Ron Paul's Fallacious Attacks on Gingrich and the Draft

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo provided a video from one of the debates where Ron Paul uses Gingrich's deferments as a cudgel in a thinly-veiled attempt to bash him as a draft dodger. Indeed, Desalvo's Paulbot site repeats this smear of Newt Gingrich being a "draft dodger".

Problem is: this claim is totally false. The CNN Truth Squad verifies that Gingrich was not eligible for the draft. Further, up to 96% of those that were draft eligible received the same type of deferments. I do not think any sane and rational person (not Paulbots!!) would fault Gingrich for not dropping out of school and abandoning his wife and kids so that he could enlist.

Gingrich was absolutely on-point when he stated:

Dr. Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false,” Gingrich hit back. “The fact is, I never asked for a deferment…I personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information and then just slurs people with.

Exactly. Ron Paul does not have the facts, and does not care about them. Whatever he can manufacture to attack somebody, he will -- just like Desalvo.

Indeed, listen to Ron Paul:

"I’m the dangerous person?” Paul responded in a CNN interview Wednesday. “When Newt Gingrich was called to service in the 1960s during the Vietnam era, guess what he thought about danger? He chickened out on that, he got deferments and didn’t even go.”

As you can see from the CNN report, Gingrich was NOT "called to service" for Vietnam, he wasn't draft eligible.

Ron Paul is plain making that up, just as Desalvo makes up facts when he wants to attack somebody. Monkey see, monkey do.

Next stop: Ron Paul's military service, and this is where things get VERY interesting.

Michael

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo simply has to go. Honest debate is clearly impossible for him.

(1) He ripped off quotes from a Paulbot website, did not bother to check if they were true, and when pointed out that they are falsely attributed, he still maintains it is valid. That is, unless the same thing is done to him, then such action is "scummy" and the person "do[es] not care about the facts". Ergo, he admitted his own actions were scummy and he does not care about the facts.

(2) He is plainly making up facts -- some of them vicious -- and does so without apology.

He plainly wants to attack my character for pointing out the facts re Ron Paul, and I cannot have somebody routinely attacking my character in this manner.

Michael

Question -Repeated

atlascott's picture

How many Congressional: (1) ethics investigations ; (2) Ethics Charges; (3) Ethics convictions; and (4) Admissions of breach of ethics does:

A. Newt have?
B. Ron Paul have?

Stop evading the question and answer it.

Next Question -Repeated

atlascott's picture

Does Newt believe that Global Warming exist? and

Does Newt think that the US Government should solve the problem?

Answer these questions. Thanks.

I Repeat

atlascott's picture

Did Newt's Think-Tank corporation collect $37 Million from health insurance companies?

And then subsequently, did Newt lobby for the individual mandate?

For those who do not know, Wikipedia defines "individual mandate" as

"...a requirement by a government that certain individual citizens purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service."

Did he do this?

Do you support government authority to order you or any citizens to buy a good or service? (Let's see what kind of individualist you are, Michael).

Exactly Is Right

Michael Moeller's picture

Michael:

As if to demonstrate this one more time:

"I am lying my ass off to protect Ron Paul at any costs." --Scott Desalvo

Now say I said person X told me you said that. You deny it.

According to you, I can still attribute the quote to you. According to you, it doesn't matter that person X said you said that, or that you deny it, I am still able to attribute it to you. Now do you get why this doesn't wash?

Desalvo's response:

"Right YOU CAN and I do not put it past YOU to DO SO. Because you are scummy and you do not care about the truth, only about character assassination.."

I was using this to illustrate the point that it is vicious when somebody takes something somebody claimed you said, and attribute it to you as if you said it.

When done to Desalvo, it is apparently "scummy" and the person "do[es] not care about the truth".

When Desalvo did the EXACT SAME THING with the Gingrich quote, he says it is perfectly valid. No, it is exactly what he says it is: "scummy" and he "does not care about the truth".

Thanks for proving the point -- in your own words and assessment. Hahaha!

Michael

Did Newt negotiate with the House Panel?

atlascott's picture

Did Newt negotiate with the House panel before agreeing to the plea deal? Did he request that the charges be modified?

At the time of the plea deal, was the House in possession of further charges against Newt that they COULD HAVE continued to investigate later?

Was not the House REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED when these ethics violations were investigated and Newt was charged and convicted and fined?

Was not the $300,000 fine the biggest fine ever for such an ethical violation?

Did not the Investigator, Cole I believe his name was, state that Newt LIED to the investigators, but the House did not specifically add this separate charge?

Was Newt not denounced by his fellow Republicans, who controlled the House? Who could have voted down the investigation and the charges?

"In a strongly worded report, special counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich had violated tax law and lied to the investigating panel, but the subcommittee would not go that far. In exchange for the subcommittee agreeing to modify the charges against him, Gingrich agreed to the penalty Dec. 20 as part of a deal in which he admitted guilt."

House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

By John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

Has Ron Paul ever done anything like this? Has Romney?

And here is some more -- he RETIRED because there were MORE ethics violations and ethical violation charges coming his way.

"The ethics committee that handled the charges against Gingrich went out of business at midnight last night without resolving complaints that the speaker received improper gifts, contributions and support from GOPAC, the political action committee he once headed. House Democrats are likely to submit those charges to the new ethics committee."

Here's what one of Gingrich's COLLEAGUES said about it:

"Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said that had he known what was in the ethics committee's report, he would not have voted for Gingrich as speaker. "The gray got grayer when you read the report," he said. "When I think of my three boys and what kind of example I want to set for them for leadership in this country, gray is not the example.""

Nice. Real nice. A guy who VOTED for him is so disgusted with the ethic violation and his LYING to investigators that he wishes he could withdraw his vote for a fellow Republican.

That's what I was TRYING to explain.

atlascott's picture

It isn't hearsay. It's not an EXCEPTION to hearsay.

Like most topics, Michael probably does realize that he is factually incorrect on this, but ignores it.

Will he ever answer the global warming and SPACE MIRROR questions, I wonder?

Go read the article I cited previously

atlascott's picture

Or don't, and continue arguing with yourself.

What did I tell you?

atlascott's picture

Gingrich is not defensible, so Michael is trying to stick to non-issues and create issues out of them.

Exactly

atlascott's picture

"Now say I said person X told me you said that. You deny it..... I can still attribute the quote to you."

Right YOU CAN and I do not put it past YOU to DO SO. Because you are scummy and you do not care about the truth, only about character assassination..

If a source close to me that you have reason to believe was in a position for me to say something like that, you could use the quote.

However, KNOWING that it never happened, and honest person wouldn't.

But YOU have, haven't you?

Fast and loose

Richard Goode's picture

Give or take another 10 points to Michael for being extremely precise in sticking to facts.

You mean like he is here, here and here?

And the score in this hockey game is...

Jules Troy's picture

Moeller 12.   Desalvo 0

Give or take another 10 points to Michael for being extremely precise in sticking to facts.

Cant give negative points in a hockey game or the point spread would be larger...

The fact that Goode is your main cheerleader should have tipped Desalvo off to immediately check premises....

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Now Deslavo's non-source:

"He got a draft notice and decided to serve in the Air Force as an officer rather than as an enlisted man in the Army. Some douches on the internet, probably one of the very secondary Ron Paul smear sites you refer to, wants to make an issue of it. But RON PAUL SERVED while Newt DID NOT."

Desalvo provides no source.

The source is Ron Paul himself.

I actually have some personal experience about the military draft because I was in the middle of my medical training during the Cuban crisis. I was a resident for a hospital in 1962 when the crisis broke out. I got a note that said I would be drafted into the army as a buck private unless I wanted to volunteer, then I could be a doctor and I could be a captain. So guess what? I became a volunteer, and I kid about that, but it was rather serious. I was not too happy about going in, but it must not have bothered me too much, because I ended up staying in the Air National Guard afterwards.

I can't wait for you to tell us about Ron Paul's alleged lies. The ones you say you're fed up with.

This guy got fed up with Ron Paul's lies, as I have, and decided to research the story. First, it is very dubious that Ron Paul even got drafted.

The source for the claim that Ron Paul got drafted is here.

Also, I can't wait to hear what you have to say about hearsay.

Made-Up Fact #8 -- Best for Last

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo's original claim:

6) "And here is some more -- he RETIRED because there were MORE ethics violations and ethical violation charges coming his way."

Desalvo's non-source and outright deception:

"Addressed above and below. A reasonable extrapolation of same."

No source, and, no, he did not address it above. This is a very vicious fabrication.

When Desalvo does not have the facts, he apparently feels entitled to invent them.

If he damages somebody in the process and is spreading vicious fabrications, apparently he has no problem. In fact, he will justify it as "reasonable extrapolation".

This last one alone should get him banned, but taken all these together, I am at a loss for words.

To attack somebody, Desalvo has granted himself the right to make up facts. Honest discussion is impossible with somebody like Desalvo.

He does not even have the conscience to admit his outright fabrications and apologize for them.

Michael

Made-Up Fact #7

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo's original claim:

(5) "This course of action by Newt, hiding behind a wife he later abandoned, makes him a good candidate?"

Desalvo's non-source:

Right, he's a scumbag

This is vicious. He makes a very serious claim, then doesn't provide a source to back it up. Just his say-so.

This, and the next one particularly, should get Desalvo booted.

Michael

Made-Up Fact #6 (I'm losing count!!)

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo's original claim:

(4) "I'll bet the men Ron Paul treated in a war zone really appreciated surgeons being there, you piece of filth."

Desalvo now:

Ron Paul never served in a war zone.

So Desalvo admits he made that one up. Case closed.

Made-Up Facts #3, possibly #4, and #5 depending on interpret.

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo's original claim:

(3) "Ethics violations: generally regarded as a political trade-off that he got out of them. Do some reading, you simpleton. Why do you think he RESIGNED? For his friggin' health, you boob? Politics, politics, politics. He gets caught, he plays politics. Nothing on his permanent record, so monkeys like you think he is ethical."

Desalvo's non-source:

"I already cited that my basis for that. Also, do some other reading on the internet. It's out there. It was a plea deal."

Yes, on ONE COUNT he took a plea, and I have plenty more to say on this later. This is all Desalvo's source is valid for, and he is being purposely deceptive with his embellishments.

This was NOT the reason he resigned. He resigned two years after the ethics case was settled. He resigned because of the elections in 1998. Apparently Desalvo missed this in his reading.

Desalvo further claims "generally regarded as a political trade-off". Really? By whom? Many consider a political witch hunt for his attacks on Clinton and the Dems.

"Nothing on his permanent record"? What the hell does that mean? A bipartisan investigation was done and found on only one count, which I will say more later. That goes on his record.

Desalvo, in vague language here, is trying to intimate that Gingrich was playing some political game to get off of the charges, which is false. They came to a plea on the only count the bipartisan House panel thought was valid.

Michael

Made-Up Fact #2

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo's original claim:

(2) "THE SAME DEFERMENT RON PAUL COULD HAVE USED BUT DIDN'T?"

Desalvo's source that says NOTHING about any alleged Ron Paul Deferment:

"Ron Paul served, your chickenhawk guy didn't. Listen to the debate on the issue, cited here.

Your guy's answer certainly makes it sound like he didn't go to war because he had a wife and kid. Let's leave aside a moment that this is not a guy who has a lot of respect for his wives.

I don't know HOW he got out of it -- there is information on the internet that is all over the place. But he DID get out of serving. Whether he hid in college or whether he hid behind his wife's skirt, he got out of it, and Ron Paul served his country."

Again, the source Desalvo uses says nothing about "THE SAME DEFERMENT RON PAUL COULT HAVE USED BUT DIDN'T". Desalvo put it in nice big bold letters, but he has no source for this. Why? Because it is false.

Desalvo has no clue what he is talking about. Gingrich was never eligibile for the draft. See CNN Truth Squad (Verdict: True!) for the explanation.

He was deferred because he was a student. Ron Paul was not a student and was draft eligible. Much more to say on this later, and it's a doozy.

Michael

Made-Up Fact #1

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo's original statement:

"But are you sure you want to criticize Ron Paul for pointing out that Ron Paul went to war when his country called and your guy hid behind a deferment?"

Now Deslavo's non-source:

"He got a draft notice and decided to serve in the Air Force as an officer rather than as an enlisted man in the Army. Some douches on the internet, probably one of the very secondary Ron Paul smear sites you refer to, wants to make an issue of it. But RON PAUL SERVED while Newt DID NOT."

Desalvo provides no source. In fact, Ron Paul did NOT go to war, and could not have gone to war.

I can't wait to tell this story, but see here and here. This guy got fed up with Ron Paul's lies, as I have, and decided to research the story. First, it is very dubious that Ron Paul even got drafted.

But the real takeaway is that Ron Paul's moves in the military seem like they are calculated to avoid serving in Vietnam and combat. At the very least, Ron Paul has a lot to answer for regarding his military service.

I actually don't blame Desalvo much for getting this wrong. Ron Paul often intimates, as he did in Desalvo's video that he "went" somewhere "in the 60's". The implication is that he went to Vietnam. Just another day in the life of the pathologically deceptive Ron Paul. The guy who did the research sums it best as:

"Now, having said that, this is the second time I have seen Ron Paul reference being drafted into the Air Force and it has bothered me each time because he is either lying, engaging in hyperbole or just plain senile. But this time he has used a reference to being drafted as a hammer with which to bash former Speaker Newt Gingrich, a man I am not supporting for president but cannot sit back and watch get unnecessarily bashed with lies and by lies."

Indeed. Well said.

Michael

BTW

Richard Goode's picture

Did you know that Newt Gingrich defines marriage as between a man and a woman who does not have cancer?

Did Michael Moeller really go to law school?

Richard Goode's picture

In the article Hearsay in United States law, Wikipedia says

An out of court statement may or may not be hearsay depending on the purpose for which it is offered. If the statement is being offered to prove the truth of what it asserts, then it becomes hearsay. When offered for any other purpose the statement is not hearsay. For example: Witness testifies that yesterday he spoke to Jim (who was in Vermont) on the phone and that Jim made the following statement, "It's raining in Vermont!" If the attorney is seeking to use this statement to prove that it was in fact raining in Vermont, then it is hearsay. But, if the attorney is seeking to use the statement to prove that the phone lines were working that day, or that Jim had not lost the power of speech, or for any other purpose, then the statement is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and therefore it is not hearsay.

The above example seems directly analogous to the present case. The witness (L. H. Carter) testifies that he spoke to Newt Gingrich and that Gingrich made the following statement about his then wife Jackie, "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer." If the attorney is seeking to use this statement to prove that Jackie is in fact not young enough or pretty enough to the wife of the President, and has cancer, then it is hearsay. But, if the attorney is seeking to use the statement to prove that Gingrich had not lost the power of speech, or to impeach Gingrich's character, or for any other purpose, then the statement is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and therefore it is not hearsay.

No one is presenting Carter's statement as evidence that Jacqueline Battley was too old, ugly and cancerous to be Newt Gingrich's wife.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems clear as day to me that Gingrich's out of court statement is NOT hearsay. But Michael Moeller, who claims to be a lawyer, disagrees.

when a person reports what somebody else says -- i.e. hearsay

This is not a direct quote from Gingrich. Gingrich's former aide said Gingrich said this to him. Classic hearsay.

I'm no lawyer, but perhaps Michael Moeller, who claims to be, would like to muddy the waters some more?

Linz -- This Has to Be the End of Desalvo

Michael Moeller's picture

I'll go through them when I get a chance here, but Scott just admitted he has no sources.

If you look below at each one of his statements, each is false. And he does not have the sources for them, and never did.

He blatantly made those facts up, and now is trying to cover it up with....nothing.

He should be banned.

The false attribution of quotes that he ripped off from a Paulbot website was bad enough, but this has to be the end of the line. He is making up facts. There is no defense. I will go through them one-by-one.

Michael

Did You Really Go To Law School, Desalvo?

Michael Moeller's picture

Before we get to you blatantly making up facts, let's handle this issue:

According to L. H. Carter, Gingrich's campaign treasurer, Gingrich said of his first wife: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."[158][159] Gingrich has denied saying it. His supporters dismiss Carter as a disgruntled former aide who was miffed at not being asked to accompany Gingrich to Washington.

This is not a direct quote from Gingrich. Gingrich's former aide said Gingrich said this to him. Classic hearsay.

Did you get your law degree by mailing in cereal boxtops?

Now notice the big difference with this:

"She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife. And besides, she has cancer." - Newt, on his first wife (Jackie, his high school teacher)

Totally false, Gingrich is not the source of that quote, the former aide is. Match the two up, Ace. One is cited as a direct quote, the other is another person saying Gingrich said that.

You're just plain dumb, Desalvo. This is not meant as name-calling, but just plain observation.

As if to demonstrate this one more time:

"I am lying my ass off to protect Ron Paul at any costs." --Scott Desalvo

.

Now say I said person X told me you said that. You deny it.

According to you, I can still attribute the quote to you. According to you, it doesn't matter that person X said you said that, or that you deny it, I am still able to attribute it to you. Now do you get why this doesn't wash?

Michael

You're Caught, Again.

atlascott's picture

Here is a quote from Michael:

"So when a person reports what somebody else says -- i.e. hearsay -- it should be treated as if the person actually said it? Is that your argument? Is that how a court of law treats hearsay? Is that how the newspapers and Wiki reported it?"

So YOU said what Gingrich said is hearsay.

I demonstrated that it is not hearsay. You did not respond to that correct analysis which contradicts your flawed understanding of same.

Rather than dealing with your error, you move on to:

"This is basic standards of citation."

Really? Where is the Blue Book for internet citation? The last time I checked, internet forum conversation is more like a discussion at the pub than a scholarly article.

Where? Show me the rule that says I have to cite every source beyond what makes SENSE. The quote in question was spoken by Gingrich, as reported by what's-his-name.

You CANNOT dispute that. You can dispute that he actually said it. You can call what's-his-name a liar. But you DO NOT get to suppress and claim anyone who brings it up is somehow immoral, unethical, or not playing by the rules because the statement is referenced as direct words coming out of Gingrich's mouth.

See, here's where your mind is skipping: If Gingrich said something to me I can say "Gingrich said so and so" and if you heard me say this, or if you read it on my blog, it is perfectly acceptable
for you to write Gingrich said "so and so" or, you could say Gingrich said "so and so" per DeSalvo. Either is fine. Either is true. Either works.

And you want a DENIAL to erase discussion of what Gingrich said?

So here's a hypothetical.

We have a murder trial.

Witness A is ready to testify that the Defendant came out of the room where the victim was later found and said "Aha! I finally killed that bastard!"

YOU would BAR that testimony. Despite whatever relevance, YOU would bar it from ever hearing the light of day, because the Defendant, who has every motive to deny it, does, in fact, deny it.

Preposterous, infantile, and ridiculous.

"Please provide an instance where I replaced a person relaying what Ron Paul allegedly said, cut out the actual speaker, and then attributed it to Ron Paul."

Direct quote from Moeller (from the Ron Paul thread):

"-In 1996, he takes ownership and says he wrote the material" (Emphasis mine).

Here, you state that Ron Paul "says he wrote the material." You cut out the speaker, cut out the quote, and then, providing citations to any number of people and sources WHO ARE NOT RON PAUL.

Let me ask you, Michael, did you read all primary sources or did you get your information from secondary and tertiary sources?

We already know the answer to that question, don't we?

Now, I will answer your questions as best I can, although it APPEARS that you are getting confused about the difference between argument and citing quotations.

As I've said, there is no rational requirement that once cites an internet post like a scholarly article.

I will also mention that this is a thread about nutless Newt, not defending Ron Paul from your slimy attacks.

Anyway, here goes:

"(1) "But are you sure you want to criticize Ron Paul for pointing out that Ron Paul went to war when his country called and your guy hid behind a deferment?""

He got a draft notice and decided to serve in the Air Force as an officer rather than as an enlisted man in the Army. Some douches on the internet, probably one of the very secondary Ron Paul smear sites you refer to, wants to make an issue of it. But RON PAUL SERVED while Newt DID NOT.

(2) "THE SAME DEFERMENT RON PAUL COULD HAVE USED BUT DIDN'T?

Ron Paul served, your chickenhawk guy didn't. Listen to the debate on the issue, cited here.

Your guy's answer certainly makes it sound like he didn't go to war because he had a wife and kid. Let's leave aside a moment that this is not a guy who has a lot of respect for his wives.

I don't know HOW he got out of it -- there is information on the internet that is all over the place. But he DID get out of serving. Whether he hid in college or whether he hid behind his wife's skirt, he got out of it, and Ron Paul served his country.

(3) "Ethics violations: generally regarded as a political trade-off that he got out of them. Do some reading, you simpleton. Why do you think he RESIGNED? For his friggin' health, you boob? Politics, politics, politics. He gets caught, he plays politics. Nothing on his permanent record, so monkeys like you think he is ethical."

I already cited that my basis for that. Also, do some other reading on the internet. It's out there. It was a plea deal.

(4) "I'll bet the men Ron Paul treated in a war zone really appreciated surgeons being there, you piece of filth."

Ron Paul never served in a war zone. Wikipedia says "Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968" -- he gave medical care to servicemen and women. THEY APPRECIATED HIS SERVICE. Of course, your guy has no useful skills other than lying, so maybe we were better off without him.

(5) "This course of action by Newt, hiding behind a wife he later abandoned, makes him a good candidate?"

Right, he's a scumbag.

(6) "And here is some more -- he RETIRED because there were MORE ethics violations and ethical violation charges coming his way."

Addressed above and below. A reasonable extrapolation of same.

What's Up With The Stall??

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo,

I assume when you made these claims, you had sources for them. What's up with the stall? As soon as you answer, we can move on.

(1) "But are you sure you want to criticize Ron Paul for pointing out that Ron Paul went to war when his country called and your guy hid behind a deferment?"

(2) "THE SAME DEFERMENT RON PAUL COULD HAVE USED BUT DIDN'T?

(3) "Ethics violations: generally regarded as a political trade-off that he got out of them. Do some reading, you simpleton. Why do you think he RESIGNED? For his friggin' health, you boob? Politics, politics, politics. He gets caught, he plays politics. Nothing on his permanent record, so monkeys like you think he is ethical."

(4) "I'll bet the men Ron Paul treated in a war zone really appreciated surgeons being there, you piece of filth."

(5) "This course of action by Newt, hiding behind a wife he later abandoned, makes him a good candidate?"

(6) "And here is some more -- he RETIRED because there were MORE ethics violations and thical violation charges coming his way."

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

I'm not presenting Carter's statement as evidence that Jacqueline Battley was too old, ugly and cancerous to be Newt Gingrich's wife.

I'm not presenting Carter's statement as evidence that Newt Gringrich thought she was too old, ugly and cancerous to be his wife.

I'm just pointing out your obvious bad faith and malice.

Your Questions...

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo,

I told you I was ready to get going on your questions just as soon as you provide the sources for these factual claims:

(1) "But are you sure you want to criticize Ron Paul for pointing out that Ron Paul went to war when his country called and your guy hid behind a deferment?"

(2) "THE SAME DEFERMENT RON PAUL COULD HAVE USED BUT DIDN'T?

(3) "Ethics violations: generally regarded as a political trade-off that he got out of them. Do some reading, you simpleton. Why do you think he RESIGNED? For his friggin' health, you boob? Politics, politics, politics. He gets caught, he plays politics. Nothing on his permanent record, so monkeys like you think he is ethical."

(4) "I'll bet the men Ron Paul treated in a war zone really appreciated surgeons being there, you piece of filth."

(5) "This course of action by Newt, hiding behind a wife he later abandoned, makes him a good candidate?"

(6) "And here is some more -- he RETIRED because there were MORE ethics violations and ethical violation charges coming his way."

Thanks,
Michael

Total BS

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo wrote:

"Yes. A witness can testify as to what he heard another say. The declarant can deny it. Here, Newt has denied it."

Yes, but you are totally missing the point. You do NOT, I repeat, do NOT attribute it to him as if he said it.

You do as Wiki, NY Times, and everybody else did, you note that it was somebody else relaying the claim. This is basic standards of citation.

Can you imagine if one was allowed to attribute anything that somebody else said you said to YOU. That is TOTALLY ABSURD.

Jesus, Desalvo, just admit it. You got busted ripping quotes from a Paulbot site, didn't bother to check what you were ripping, and now you are taking the absolutely RIDICULOUS position that if somebody says you said X, it is perfectly appropriate to attribute X to you.

This is your position? Yes or no. If so, we can put it to a test.

Desalvo wrote:

"Note that you didn't object when Michael quoted a secondary source quoting an ANONYMOUS source to smear Ron Paul. No outrage there, huh?"

I was relaying what the WaPo article stated, I did not fabricate or falsely attribute a source. First, you falsely claimed that the sources were anonymous. Nope. Only one was, and I agreed to dismiss that source, and asked you about the other three named sources. You have thus far completely evaded the three named sources, and my questions regarding them.

Are you ever going to address that?

Desalvo wrote:

Double standards.

Ridiculous.

No double standards at all. Most of the testimony is not hearsay, and the stuff that is may be admissible to impeach.

Desalvo wrote:

If the out of court declarant is available to testify (and here, he has) -- is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted still hearsay?

If the out of court statement is NOT being offered for the truth of the matter asserted but for another purpose, is the statement still hearsay?

The answer to both of these is, of course, NO.

Federal Rules of Evidence. You can also get admissibility with prior or subsequent inconsistent statements. Depends on what Ron Paul would testify to and if it would prejudice the jury.

In addition, are you going to address the testimonies that are not hearsay? Or are you going to continue to evade?

It's funny that you are adamant about me answering questions, but you have a serious problem addressing what I ask you.

You can either address the questions I put to you on this in the above link, my response to Goode below, or my questions to Goode before he gave up and evaded them at least four times. Go right on ahead.

Let's see you argue some for once instead of transparently evading and making bald assertions.

Michael

Hearsay

atlascott's picture

If the out of court declarant is available to testify (and here, he has) -- is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted still hearsay?

If the out of court statement is NOT being offered for the truth of the matter asserted but for another purpose, is the statement still hearsay?

The answer to both of these is, of course, NO.

Meaning that the quote in question IS NOT HEARSAY. IT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN COURT.

Move on, Michael. You have no point whatsoever but to muddy the waters and try to make Gingrich's OWN VILE WORDS fade as you focus on a perfectly acceptable citation by me.

As I have said before, if there was an improper attribution of the in the secondary source citation, I apologize. This is the second time I have done so.

But just as your "witnesses" said things that YOU think besmirch Ron Paul's good name (they don't because none of them clarify that Ron Paul ever saw the exact articles or excerpts you identified on that thread), here we have an eye-witness to Newt's horrible statements. Your don't LIKE them. So you pull out every stop to make them seem incredible.

But it is a quote from Newt by way of an eye-witness to the statement. The EXACT statement. MUCH better and MUCH more relevant than you're position on the other thread.

Still waiting for a DIRECT QUOTE from Ron Paul where he says that he admits he wrote any of the articles. Like you said he did. You should either admit you were wrong, or accept that you lied.

So, where do you come down on government SPACE MIRRORS?

Or or government GEOTHERMAL solutions to global warming?

He accuses others....

atlascott's picture

...of doing what HE does.

Except in my case, there have been no scummy moves.

In his case, it's all he's got.

Yes, Richard

atlascott's picture

Double standards.

Ridiculous.

Partisan?

atlascott's picture

You ignore his name calling and techniques but focus on my giving it back to him?

I'm not the only name callere, here.

Yes. A witness can testify as to what he heard another say. The declarant can deny it. Here, Newt has denied it.

It is for readers to decide whether Newt, with his back room, political plea deals, is honest and worthy of belief.

Think about it for a second: if a denial by the principal made evidence of wrongdoing in admissible, nothing would ever be proven, would it?

Note that you didn't object when Michael quoted a secondary source quoting an ANONYMOUS source to smear Ron Paul. No outrage there, huh?

Hold Michael to the same standards as everyone else and you'll see that his "evidence" is nothing of the sort: he restates it inaccurately as was demonstrated on the Paul thread, and here, tries to divert attention from the real issues.

Accept his position if you wish, but let's both be clear it is not based on a fair weighing of Michael's techniques and name calling vis a vis mine.

Another Source...

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo,

I'll get to the ethics stuff in just a minute, but I need your sources for the previous claims I mentioned. I want the facts cleared up before I proceed. In addition, I need a source for this claim:

(6) "And here is some more -- he RETIRED because there were MORE ethics violations and ethical violation charges coming his way."

And a final point about your false attribution, you wrote:

"So the quote is attributed to Newt by a secondary source.

JUST as you defended doing on the Ron Paul thread."

This is blatantly false. Please provide an instance where I replaced a person relaying what Ron Paul allegedly said, cut out the actual speaker, and then attributed it to Ron Paul. I did no such thing. You're just plain making stuff up, as you are here:

You took ANONYMOUS sources against Ron Paul as gospel.

In fact, I did no such thing. When I linked to WaPo article, it had 4 witnesses. The only point you brought up was that one witness was unnamed, and I said at the time I was fully willing to exclude that witness. I then asked you about the other three, and you evaded. 'Nuff said.

Michael

Double Standards or Is Goode Ignorant? Yes, Goode is Ignorant

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode apparently thinks he has me applying double standards, but really only proves he has no clue about the law of evidence and is a damn fool. It is rather funny that Goode is now interested in assessing the testimonies of Ron Paul's former associates, as when he was asked questions over and over and over again on these same testimonies, he refused to answer. Now that he thinks he has a valid point, he is suddenly interested in the testimonies again.

Evasion coupled with malice on Goode's part? I report, you decide.

You see, dear Goode, the testimonies of Ron Paul's former associates are NOT all hearsay. The testimonies include things that they saw, which is NOT hearsay. When the secretary testified she saw Ron Paul always editing and proofing the newsletters, she is testifying to what she saw, not what Ron Paul said to her.

It is not hearsay. And it directly contradicts Ron Paul statements that he was not aware of the content of the newsletters. Now, Goode, what say you? You want to deal with this issue, or are you going to scatter like a cockroach, only appearing when you want to snarl?

As to the statements, yes, the witnesses are also providing some hearsay, but they may very well be admissible. That's right Goode, there is a general rule against hearsay, but there are exceptions and exemptions, or it could be admitted for another purpose other than it's truth.

Take the statement you just relayed from Ed Crane. When Ron Paul says he did not know of the content until after the fact, Crane's statement will be admitted to impeach Ron Paul's character (as it should!!), i.e. the purpose for which it is offered is not truth, but impeachment. Crane's statement directly contradicts Ron Paul's claim that he had no knowledge of the content of the newsletters.

As a side note, let's look at an enormous factual difference as well. We have four people providing testimonies that are all consistent, and all show Ron Paul to be lying. In Gingrich's case, it is the testimony of one person who allegedly is a disgruntled former aide. Corroborated vs. uncorroborated.

Does Goode feel like tackling any more of the statements and provide some more of his legal expertise on inadmissible hearsay?

Michael

"the last refuge of a true scoundrel"

Richard Goode's picture

In 2011 their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay, and that Gingrich's visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple's children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.
[...]

Moeller tries to snip the quote. Isn't that just plain pathetic?

In 2011 their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay, and that Gingrich's visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple's children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce. Although Gingrich's presidential campaign staff continued to insist in 2011 that his wife requested the divorce, court documents obtained by CNN from Carroll County, Georgia, indicated that Jackie had asked a judge to block the process stating that although "she has adequate and ample grounds for divorce... she does not desire one at this time [and] does not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken."

As anybody can see from the quote in its entirety, it was Gingrich who filed for divorce, and his wife who requested that the divorce not proceed.

Double standards?

Richard Goode's picture

Here's Michael Moeller on Ron Paul.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

Are you familiar at all with the legal doctrine of relevance? Do you have any clue how devastating this testimony is, and how the whole case can be ripped apart on questioning? ... I think you do, and you are evading like mad.

Here's Michael Moeller on Newt Gringrich.

According to L. H. Carter, Gingrich's campaign treasurer, Gingrich said of his first wife: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."

So when a person reports what somebody else says -- i.e. hearsay -- it should be treated as if the person actually said it? Is that your argument? Is that how a court of law treats hearsay? ... WOW! ... Admit it, you got busted

Double standards? Devastating testimony or inadmissible hearsay? I report, you decide.

Scott

Lindsay Perigo's picture

That's an actual quote of words coming out of Gingrich's mouth, per a person who heard him.

But it isn't, is it? It's what that person, who has reason to be sour with Newt, claims he heard. There's no corroboration, and Newt denies saying it. Would you try to convict in a court of law on so flimsy a basis?

Regardless, your animus against Michael does indeed seem unhinged. "Piece of filth," "scummy," "repulsive," etc. Michael Moeller?! Get a grip, man! That sort of thing should be reserved for deserving cases, like Baade—your ally in this matter. That alone should give you pause! Again I ask, what's happened to you?!

Whoa Nellie!!!

Michael Moeller's picture

To defend his false attribution, Desalvo writes:

"That's an actual quote of words coming out of Gingrich's mouth, per a person who heard him."

So when a person reports what somebody else says -- i.e. hearsay -- it should be treated as if the person actually said it? Is that your argument? Is that how a court of law treats hearsay? Is that how the newspapers and Wiki reported it?

Even if the person allegedly saying it denies it? Even if other extrinsic evidence, like statements from the daughter, make it unlikely to be true?

After all this, you position is that it was perfectly valid to cite Gingrich as the source? WOW!

Admit it, you got busted ripping it from a Paulbot site and didn't bother to check if it was true, and you are going bonkers and getting angry b/c you got flat out busted.

Michael

Sources, Please

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo...you made the following factual claims, please provide your sources.

(1) "But are you sure you want to criticize Ron Paul for pointing out that Ron Paul went to war when his country called and your guy hid behind a deferment?"

(2) "THE SAME DEFERMENT RON PAUL COULD HAVE USED BUT DIDN'T?

(3) "Ethics violations: generally regarded as a political trade-off that he got out of them. Do some reading, you simpleton. Why do you think he RESIGNED? For his friggin' health, you boob? Politics, politics, politics. He gets caught, he plays politics. Nothing on his permanent record, so monkeys like you think he is ethical."

(4) "I'll bet the men Ron Paul treated in a war zone really appreciated surgeons being there, you piece of filth."

(5) "This course of action by Newt, hiding behind a wife he later abandoned, makes him a good candidate?"

There weren't many other facts in that post, so it should be easy for you to provide citations and all.

Michael

Weak

atlascott's picture

You have no position whatsoever here, Michael.

That's an actual quote of words coming out of Gingrich's mouth, per a person who heard him.

Do what you do scummy: make it up when you know you cannot win.

The cited evidence on this thread is overwhelming, both of Gingrich's profound failings and your bad faith.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You see Desalvo's response here? He's trying to play this off as an actual quote from Gingrich. An honest citation would note that the quote is supplied from an aide, and would not attribute it to Gingrich himself, as the NY Times and everybody else reporting it did.

Desalvo obviously just ripped it from a Paulbot site, got busted, and as an excuse is claiming Gingrich is lying. He left us the link to the site he ripped it from. When I asked him for his sources, he just copied them from the website, apparently with no clue which quote came from where. The quotes fit his desires, so he ripped them without bothering to check.

I mean, Gingrich's own daughter said the mom asked for the divorce, so the idea he dumped because of cancer or looks has little weight.

Desalvo gets busted, then blames Gingrich for it. Gotta love it.

What say you, Linz?

Michael

Dishonesty

atlascott's picture

Are you really SO stupid?

Newt said it. An attributed witness heard it.

You took ANONYMOUS sources against Ron Paul as gospel.

Newt denies it. Of course he does! He is a lying scumbag. He's the guy who pleaded guilty to ethics violations and the report says he LIED to investigators try to save his ass. He weaseled out of the rest by resigning. Its what he does. Lies, ducks dodges and weaves.

So what?

This makes you and Gingrich dishonest and scummy.

I merely accurately attributed a quote to Newt which now HAS been sorted out.

You lose, scummy.

Now stop wasting time and answer my questions.

Unless Linz bans you for your colossal bad faith.

?!?!?

Michael Moeller's picture

I bust Desalvo blatantly and falsely attributing a quote to Gingrich, and I should be banned?

How do you figure that, Desalvo?

As i already stated, I misremembered the source of the quote, I thought it was his ex-wife, but turns out it was a former aide.

Either way -- the point remains the same -- you falsely attributed a quote to Gingrich that he expressly denied saying. It takes two seconds of research on Wikipedia to realize that.

So are you going to explain this dishonesty or not?

Michael

Quote attributed to Newt

atlascott's picture

So the quote is attributed to Newt by a secondary source.

JUST as you defended doing on the Ron Paul thread.

Another scummy Moeller prevarication.

Scummy. Scummy. Scummy.

You should be banned from this site.

Michael Should Be Banned

atlascott's picture

He has been caught, red handed, lying TWICE.

He will not admit it.

The magnitude of his intellectual dishonesty is the most repulsive display I've ever seen here.

Linz should place him on moderation immediately if he fails to apologize.

Hard to comprehend

atlascott's picture

This guy has no moral standards at all.

No wonder he supports Ginrich.

Watch as he focuses on side issues. There is no defending Gingrich.

You're Wrong

atlascott's picture

And scummy.

Goode cited it.

atlascott's picture

So answer for your impertinence.

More Moeller misremembering

Richard Goode's picture

I misremembered and thought the quote came from Jackie Battley, his first wife, but ... The quote should immediately be suspect because ...

... his first wife would not refer to herself in the third person. She would have said, "I'm not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, I have cancer."

This creature is not only treacherous ...

Richard Goode's picture

Moeller (3 hours ago): "It clearly comes from his ex-wife."

Moeller (now): "It is from a former aide."

Me (3 hours ago): "The Los Angeles Times says ... As reported by L.H. Carter, his campaign treasurer, Newt said of Jacqueline ..."

Moeller (now): "From Wiki: ... According to L. H. Carter, Gingrich's campaign treasurer, Gingrich said of his first wife ..."

... but downright stupid.

one of the few sources that misattribute this quote is the latimes source that Goode gave!!

The Los Angeles Times source that I gave attributes this quote to L. H. Carter. As does Michael Moeller!! (At least, he does now. Perhaps when he returns he will attribute it to someone else entirely? It's apparent enough how he bobs and weaves. For him it's just about "winning". All very juvenile. Doesn't he have more edifying things to focus on?)

For obvious reasons, as displayed here and on other threads, I will be responding to Moeller, to point out his obvious bad faith and malice.

Maybe We Have An Explanation for Desalvo???

Michael Moeller's picture

I thought that website Desalvo linked to looked a little suspicious -- including the citations for the quotes -- and it contains misattributed quotes, as shown in my last post. Well, lo and behold, this seems to be a repository for attacks and talking points coming from The Daily Paul. For those unfamiliar with The Daily Paul, this is a fanatical Paulbot website that promotes not only lunacy, but has all kinds of crazy on it -- articles and comment -- such as referring to Levin as a "Zionist Jew".

Really risible and sick stuff, but this appears to be where Desalvo is getting his talking points from.

I will show tomorrow how he is just plain making up other facts that don't suit the Ron Paul narrative.

Michael

Desalvo in Deep

Michael Moeller's picture

If Desalvo had bothered to check other sources, he might have found out that some of those quotes are not from Gingrich himself. In fact, if he had just checked Wikipedia he would have found out that the quote in question was not from Gingrich,and Wikipedia provides many sources. It is from a former aide. From Wiki:

In 2011 their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay, and that Gingrich's visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple's children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.
[...]
According to L. H. Carter, Gingrich's campaign treasurer, Gingrich said of his first wife: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."[158][159] Gingrich has denied saying it. His supporters dismiss Carter as a disgruntled former aide who was miffed at not being asked to accompany Gingrich to Washington.

I misremembered and thought the quote came from Jackie Battley, his first wife, but it was a former aide. The quote should immediately be suspect because their daughter, Jackie Cushman, says the mother asked for the divorce, not Gingrich. That's how I knew Gingrich didn't say, I actually bothered to look at the source when I first saw the quote awhile back.

If you type the quote in Google, one of the few sources that misattribute this quote is the latimes source that Goode gave!! This creature is not only treacherous, but downright stupid if he doesn't he will get busted. For obvious reasons, as displayed here and on other threads, I will not be responding to Goode, except to point out his obvious bad faith and malice. The only explanation for Goode's treachery at this point is malice.

Michael

Can I has Gingrich?

Richard Goode's picture

Sense of Life Objectivists says

As reported by M. Moeller, his smear campaign manager, Newt Marianne said of Jacqueline: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."

Do you have any clue how not-devastating-at-all this testimony is? I think M. Moeller does, and he's evading like mad.

Desalvo...

Michael Moeller's picture

I'm not ignoring your questions. I said I would answer them tomorrow. I'm typing on my phone right now. I think many are fair questions that allow us to place Gingrich and Ron Paul side-by-side.

BUT NO, we should not ignore that quote. It clearly comes from his ex-wife. Gingrich has denied saying it, yet you attribute it to him.

This is intellectually dishonest, and you should be booted for it, quite frankly. I'll check the other quotes later, and see if you've pulled anymore shenanigans.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

The Los Angeles Times says

As reported by L.H. Carter, his campaign treasurer, Newt said of Jacqueline: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."

Are you familiar at all with the legal doctrine of relevance? Do you have any clue how devastating this testimony is? I think you do, and you are evading like mad.

Ignore that quote

atlascott's picture

If you think its inaccurate, then ignore it.

I cannot find the attribution for it, so feel free to ignore it. In fact, feel free to ignore any quote that is unattributed specifically, and when I get to it, I will re-post and cite them.

Stop evading and answer my questions on newt's character and positions on the issues and the role of government.

Another Question

atlascott's picture

Did Newt's Think-Tank corporation collect $37 Million from health insurance companies?

And then subsequently, did Newt lobby for the individual mandate?

For those who do not know, Wikipedia defines "individual mandate" as

"...a requirement by a government that certain individual citizens purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service."

Did he do this?

Do you support government authority to order you or any citizens to buy a good or service? (Let's see what kind of individualist you are, Michael).

Desalvo...

Michael Moeller's picture

Which source is the quote for: "She wasn't pretty enough...."? You really should link to the source when you provide a quote. It makes it easy to match up what you've quoted with the source.

Michael

Next Question

atlascott's picture

Does Newt believe that Global Warming exist? and

Does Newt think that the US Government should solve the problem?

Answer these questions. Thanks.

Answer the question

atlascott's picture

How many Congressional: (1) ethics investigations ; (2) Ethics Charges; (3) Ethics convictions; and (4) Admissions of breach of ethics does:

A. Newt have?
B. Ron Paul have?

Stop evading the question and answer it.

YOU are intellectually dishonest

atlascott's picture

Well, actually, just plain dishonest.

Here are my quote sources

Callista quote: The Good Wife: Can Callista Gingrich save her husband?, by Ariel Lev, The New Yorker, January 23, 2012

"Doesn't matter what I do" quote: John H. Richardson, "Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican, " Esquire Magazine, August 10, 2010

lobbying -- January 23, 2012, 11:29 pm Tampa, Fla., Debate Fact-Check by THE NEW YORK TIMES

"Tales About Gingrich make field level", Idaho Spokesman Review, August 16, 1995 pB6

"Newt's Glass House," by Stephen Talbot, Salon.com, August 28, 1998

adulterous choir practice: "Personals", by Leah Garchik, San Francisco Chronicle, August 17, 1999 pE12

http://www.realchange.org/ging...

Ethics Violation

atlascott's picture

The whole thing was a plea deal.

He pleaded guilty and he LIED to the investigators.

"In a strongly worded report, special counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich had violated tax law and lied to the investigating panel, but the subcommittee would not go that far. In exchange for the subcommittee agreeing to modify the charges against him, Gingrich agreed to the penalty Dec. 20 as part of a deal in which he admitted guilt."

House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

By John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

Has Ron Paul ever done anything like this? Has Romney?

And here is some more -- he RETIRED because there were MORE ethics violations and ethical violation charges coming his way.

"The ethics committee that handled the charges against Gingrich went out of business at midnight last night without resolving complaints that the speaker received improper gifts, contributions and support from GOPAC, the political action committee he once headed. House Democrats are likely to submit those charges to the new ethics committee."

Here's what one of Gingrich's COLLEAGUES said about it:

"Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said that had he known what was in the ethics committee's report, he would not have voted for Gingrich as speaker. "The gray got grayer when you read the report," he said. "When I think of my three boys and what kind of example I want to set for them for leadership in this country, gray is not the example.""

Nice. Real nice. A guy who VOTED for him is so disgusted with the ethic violation and his LYING to investigators that he wishes he could withdraw his vote for a fellow Republican.

Excellent choice for President.

Desalvo...

Michael Moeller's picture

You're going completely bonkers. Now you're just plain making up facts. I'll demonstrate this tomorrow when I have time.

In the mean time, you NEED to clear up something right now. You are conspicuously evading the questions about the misattribution of quotes.

Concerning the quotes about Newt's ex-wifes that I previously outlined and are in your thread post, can you provide your sources for those quotes, please?

From where I stand, you misattributed to him things he did not say. This is intellectually dishonest, and should get you booted, but that's Linz's call.

You do have some 'splainin' to do, in any event.

Michael

Ethics Violations Charges

atlascott's picture

How many does Ron Paul ever had against him?

Is it your position that all 84 were fabricated? REALLY?

America is in danger of being taken over by radical Muslim athei

atlascott's picture

"America is in danger of being taken over by radical Muslim atheists and gay fascists

Gingrich sees the struggle for the future of America as a Manichean battle between himself and the secular radicals who are trying to impose their agenda on the nation — a dire vision he laid out this spring, just weeks before announcing his White House bid.

Via Politico:

"I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.*"

For Gingrich, a Southern Baptist who converted to Catholicism, the threat of secularism . In a 2008 interview with Bill O'Reilly, Gingrich warned:

"I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion."

Thankfully, Gingrich believes he is the man to save the country from the perils of secularism. By his own account, Gingrich is a World Historical Transformational Figure and people like him "are what stand between us and Auschwitz."

*How radical Islamists can also be secular atheists is still unclear."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

Yes, yes. That's right. Because there is SO MUCH SECULAR TERRORISM in the world.
And SO MANY GAY SUICIDE BOMBERS....

Thank God we have Newt....

Still loving him? Still thinking he is the least crazy of the field?

Small Government Newt Wants "Space Lasers"

atlascott's picture

"The U.S. will fend off missiles with space lasers

Courtesy of The Daily Show

Predictably, given his love of all things galactic, Newt Gingrich is one of the last Star Wars defense hawks left in politics. While space weapons and space-based missile defense systems have long been abandoned as a costly and mostly futile endeavor, Gingrich hasn't given up on the idea of zapping missiles from space.

Gingrich has repeatedly touted the benefits of an anti-missile defense system that orbits the earth, despite the fact that this idea has repeatedly proved worthless. And Wired writes that as recently as 2009, Gingrich called for the U.S. to break out the ray guns to take out North Korea's missiles. The problem, of course, is that the Airborne Laser technology Gingrich was referring to is about $4 billion over budget and has never been successfully tested after 10 years of development.

Gingrich has also proposed developing a "laser pulsing system" that could stop missiles from space."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

Small Government Newt Wants A Czar of His Own...

atlascott's picture

"The President should appoint an Avian Flu Czar

If elected President, Gingrich would be nothing if not prepared. That's because the self-described futurist sees imminent catastrophe everywhere, and is constantly predicting our impending doom in the form of pandemic outbreaks, rogue state missile attacks, and electromagnetic shocks.

Thankfully, Gingrich has the solutions to avoid these crises. In the case of a flu outbreak, for example, Gingrich would appoint an Avian Flu Czar to basically overhaul the entire public health system.

From Gingrich's 2005 NYT oped:

"Were the federal government ever entitled to the benefit of the doubt, it forfeited that presumption in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Unless these shortcomings are fixed, we have no grounds to presume the administration's laudable avian flu strategies will be translated into action.

What we need to do to prepare for and respond to a pandemic is change the very way the government delivers services. And to do that, the following initiatives must be integrated into the government's response:

Designate a single, accountable leader. An avian flu pandemic is among the greatest threats to our country today. Given our vulnerability and the amount of work to be done, the president must appoint a leader who is singularly focused on avian flu."

h/t The Atlantic"

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

In other words, YOUR Republican wants to appoint czars, just like Obamarxist....status quo isn't good enough.

Drug dealers should get the death penalty

atlascott's picture

"Drug dealers should get the death penalty

As Speaker of the House, Gingrich proposed legislation that would have sentenced repeat drug trafficking offenders to the death penalty.

"You import commercial quantities of drugs in the United States for the purpose of destroying our children, we will kill you," he said in a 1995 speech to the Republican National Committee. ""If the word gets back that we're serious and we're actually implementing it, then it will have a very chilling effect on people bringing drugs into the U.S.""

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

So much for the libertarian idea that it is your business if you take drugs, huh?

Video Game "Second Life will help build a better America

atlascott's picture

"Here are part of his remarks, courtesy of the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza:

"While it is true that it is still fairly primitive by the standards of having holograms or being face-to-face in more complex ways, I think you’re going to find this is an example of how we can rethink learning…. I think 3-D Internet in all of its various forms is going to become one of the great breakthroughs of the next ten years and helps us create what I’ve described as the world that works, and I think it’s important to recognize that this is rapidly going to extend beyond gaming. As Second Life C.E.O. Philip Rosedale said in Wired magazine, “I’m not building a game, I’m building a new country.” I think it’s a parallel country, it’s a parallel that enables us to do things that would be much more difficult to do in the real world.""

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

We want solutions for THIS WORLD, not your fantasy computer world, knucklehead.

Use "geoengineering" to control global warming

atlascott's picture

"Geo-engineering holds forth the promise of addressing global warming concerns for just a few billion dollars a year," he said in 2008, according to the Guardian. "We would have an option to address global warming by rewarding scientific innovation. Bring on American ingenuity. Stop the green pig."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

So...we should spend a bunch of government money.....researching a technology that doesn't really exist.....to solve....a problem that doesn't exist?

Newt's Stupidest Ideas - Space Mirrors!

atlascott's picture

Yes. You read that correctly. Space Mirrors.

"NASA should install a "mirror system in space" to light highways and expose criminals" and a "a massive lunar colony to mine the moon's mineral resources."

http://www.businessinsider.com...

My God. This is the guy you want?

The one who so reveres the Constitution that he thinks the Executive Branch should should IGNORE the Supreme Court, and who wants to build SPACE MIRRORS????????

Flip Flip, Flippity, Floppity

atlascott's picture

Newt "I'll Say Anything For Power" Gingrich

Way to slam Paul Ryan and then claim that qouting HIS OWN WORDS would be a "falsehood" --- WHAT????

Newt Gingrich: ‘Any Ad Which Quotes What I Said On Sunday Is A Falsehood’ by Colby Hall | 8:50 am, May 18th, 2011 - http://www.mediaite.com

Rush Limbaugh explains how it is actually a DOUBLE flip flop

"“I am not going to justify this. I am not going to explain it. The attack on Paul Ryan, the support for an individual mandate in health care? Folks, don’t ask me to explain this. There is no explanation! What do you mean, if I don’t explain it, who will? There is no explanation for it. First off, it cuts Paul Ryan off at the knees. It supports the Obama administration in the lawsuits that 26 states have filed over the mandate. I guess, what? Back in 1993, Newt supported an individual mandate, everybody should buy insurance. I am as befuddled as anyone else is what I’m telling you.”"

Rush Limbaugh on his radio show.

Thinks Gay Marriage is "Temporary Abberation"

atlascott's picture

"“I believe that marriage is between a man and woman,” Gingrich said. “It has been for all of recorded history and I think this is a temporary aberration that will dissipate. I think that it is just fundamentally goes against everything we know.”"

Direct quote of Gingrich

"Cue The Divorce Jokes: Newt Gingrich Thinks Gay Marriage Is A ‘Temporary Aberration’" by by Frances Martel | 10:40 am, October 1st, 2011, http://www.mediaite.com

"The (BAD) Idea Man"

atlascott's picture

Fire Janitors, Replace Them With Schoolchildren - No Child Left Behind Part 2?

"“Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising.”

He added, “You go out and talk to people, as I do, you go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job between nine and 14 years of age. They all were either selling newspapers, going door to door, they were doing something, they were washing cars.”"

"Not An Onion Spoof: Newt Gingrich’s Education Plan Is To Fire Janitors And Replace Them With Kids" by Tommy Christopher | 12:58 pm, November 20th, 2011, http://www.mediaite.com - citing Politico.com

Dictator, Does not understand or support the Constitution

atlascott's picture

"Gingrich argues that the prevailing view that the Supreme Court is the final word on constitutionality is wrong, and that Congress and the executive branch should begin ignoring the Supreme Court’s rulings when they disagree with them. "

"Gingrich's Bad Ideas" by Ezra Klein, Washington Post.com

Wannabe Dictator

atlascott's picture

"Newt has a grandiosity and self-importance that's hard to believe. Since he was in college, he has been telling people he needs to lead America so he can change history and save us all from disaster. No exaggeration -- check out this 1995 New Yorker profile. Darryl Conner, a Gingrich friend who Newt has hired to train congressmen, remembers first working with him 40 years ago, when Newt was 28 years old. "It couldn't have been more than a few days before he was talking about what he needed to do to save Western civilization."

Frank Gregorsky, Newt's former chief of staff, said he once asked Newt to be more philosophically coherent, and Gingrich replied "Saving civilization is hard. You have to be fluid." Newt asked Frank to read Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy (very cool science fiction, in my humble opinion), explaining "I think of things in hundred-year increments, so I wanted you to read Asimov, because that conveys the course of civilization over five hundred years, because that's how I think."

And because he's so important (in his own mind), he is a real risk for authoritarian rule if elected. Heck, he has promised authoritarian rule. In between all his scandals, he has vowed to fire all liberal government workers and arrest judges who rule against him. So if he gets elected, don't be surprised if he grabs all those powers Dick Cheney carved out after 9/11 -- detaining US citizens without trial, warrantless wiretapping, torture -- and uses them to fight anyone who opposes his power. After all, he's saving Western civilization."

The Politics of Perception, by Connie Bruck, The New Yorker, October 9, 1995 p 51-78

I'll make it easy for you Newt supporters:

"he has vowed to fire all liberal government workers and arrest judges who rule against him"

THIS is what you want?

"There are few things any

atlascott's picture

"There are few things any current candidate has done more hypocritical than Newt's corporate lobbying work for the mortgage giant Freddie Mac. You see, Newt has publicly attacked Freddie Mac for years, blaming it for the 2008 housing crash. Then we found out that they paid him $1.6 million, as he went around and tried to convince Republicans to vote for Freddie Mac's favorite bills (and against regulations on them). Newt denies he was lobbying -- because his work didn't meet some technical definitions of lobbying -- and claimed, ridiculously that they paid him to be a "historian." No historian in history has earned $1.6 million.

Newt didn't report to Freddie Mac's director of history. (Spoiler alert; no company has one.) He reported to Craig Thomas, who was in charge of lobbying for them (and a registered lobbyist himself). and paid Newt $25,000 a month. On January 24, 2012, Newt finally released his contract. Guess what is not described in his services? History. In fact, Newt admits that he only talked to Freddie Mac staff for about one hour per month. At $25,000/ hour, that's a lot of history for a mortgage lender.

And Freddie Mac is not the only company Newt lobbied for. He had dozens of corporate clients who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for his "services." He promoted his health care clients to legislators in Georgia or Florida who were considered changes in health care laws. He talked up projects that his clients IBM and HealthTrio were working on, to federal officials. He pushed for changes to Medicare that would enrich other clients of his. And one client, drug maker Novo Nordisk, described Newt's work this way in their annual report: "Such activities are often referred to as lobbying.”

Newt actually was a champion of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as far back as 1995, when he blocked (as Speaker of the House) two attempts to raise fees on the two companies by hundreds of millions of dollars. The two flew Newt and his then-wife Marianne to Ireland in 1998, for a publicity event/vacation, and within months after Newt resigned from Congress in disgrace, Freddie Mac began paying him cash as a consultant. "

Tampa, Fla., Debate Fact-Check by THE NEW YORK TIMES, January 23, 2012

Gingrich’s former firm releases Freddie Mac contract, by Dan Eggen, Washington Post, January 24, 2012

"Gingrich, Critic of 'Business as Usual,' Helps Out Special Interests Like 'Any Member of Congress'", Phil Kuntz, Wall Street Journal, April 3, 1995 pA16

Murdoch, Joined by Lobbyist, Talked of Regulatory Problem at Meeting With Gingrich, by KATHARINE Q. SEELYE, New York Times, January 15, 1995

Gingrich’s Deep Ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, by ERIC LICHTBLAU, New York Times, February 3, 2012

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.