Skip to comments.Gingrich Divorce Papers Magically Appear In Media Hands (Sealed records)
Posted on 12/27/2011 9:06:53 AM PST by Smokeyblue
To this day, Barack Hussein Obama remains a man of mystery. Copious amounts of documentation from his early life and academic career have never been released. It took years of pressure, plus Donald Trump as the ringmaster of a media circus, just to see his birth certificate.
When the L.A. Times obtained a potentially embarrassing videotape of Obama laughing it up at a party for Arafat minion Rashid Khalidi, the paper pursed its lips and fastidiously hid the tape from public view. Their newspaper account of the part didnt even mention that domestic terrorist Friends of Obama Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn attended the event. Another important connection from Obamas past, his long attendance at Reverend Jeremiah Wrights church of racial hatred, was carefully buried by the media until conservative radio hosts and bloggers dragged it into the open.
The rules for vetting are very different for Republican candidates. Weve already seen murky allegations from Herman Cains past assigned a level of instant credibility that would never have been granted if he were a black Democrat. Even after a much more serious accusation of a long-running consensual affair caused Cain to suspend his campaign, we still dont know exactly what the initial sexual harassment accusers complained about.
Now CNN has magically obtained the sealed records of Newt Gingrichs first divorce. Heres the wonderful story of how this Yuletide journalistic miracle came to pass:
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
It's called the prior restraints doctrine. While the state can enjoin parties over whom it has jurisdiction against disclosure of documents (and punish them with contempt if they violate that injunction), the state cannot establish restraints on the free speech of third parties. The most famous example of this was the Pentagon Papers case in which a white paper on Vietnam was published by the usual liberal suspects after being stolen by, IIRC, a defense department contractor who was under a confidentiality agreement.
“Yet not telling your wife that you are helping someone out does? Dude, the man is a serial adulterer. If you were at all consistant, youd be far more concerned about Newt.”
You may be the perfect example of why the country is where it is right now. You didn’t get one word of what I said. The point was Cain destroyed Cain. We don’t owe Cain a thing for self-destructing.if there had been no ammunition, there would have been no shots fired. Secondly, I’m not “concerned about Newt” because Newt is irrelevant to me. My candidate is Perry. I’ll do everything I can to help him because I believe in him. I will vote for the nominee. Hanging on to Cain’s ankles and sobbing does you no good. If Gingrich isn’t okay with you, support another candidate. Cain’s gone.
No, I just misread your comment.
I wonder how many women they have lined up to take Santorum out?
Happy New Year...
This heavy handed Axelrod operation just may backfire, since it is ancient history belabored by the Left.
Yawn. Who cares. Someone files, and the responder’s lawyer denies. Standard operating procedure.
I've been thinking about this for a while. The only way to put an end to these political crows ravaging the crops of the electorate is not to put up a scarecrow, but to leave a few dead crows lying around.
It's time for some real prosecutions, enough to discourage a generation or two of mafeasants to think 5 times before getting anywhere near a political office.
Well the only part of that statement that is true is later part, yes Newt has been married 3 times. The first part is not true particularly as you state it and has been explained several times both by Newt during the debates and by others. And I remember the Heritage Foundation's position on this; which is what this was in reference to. Now I did find it to be a stupid counter-argument to HillaryCare, but it was one of the main stream conservative counter arguments way back 1992-1993. Given then the constant drumbeat by the media and the
“beautiful people” that we had a “health care” crisis, which we don't (And never have had if you actually look at the numbers!) my attitude was “whatever argument it takes to stop HillaryCare! Just Stop it!!”. That was then this is now!
As far as Cain backing out goes, I think “we” were there to support him if he would have launched a counter-offensive. It looked like he was when he hired that Atlanta lawyer who has expertise in defamation of character & liable law. However he inexplicably gave up, as Palin did when she got accused by that trashy author that she had sex as a single women with a black pro basketball player.(Single women having sex..whodathunk?) You are going to say well Palin wasn't running, well she was doing a good imitation of it! In both cases they showed they didn't have the “kill the enemy, scatter their flocks and enjoy the lamentations of their women (in this case the lamentations of the gay crowd!)” attitude that is needed.
If you read Newt's supposed praise of RomneyCare in a 2006-ish article its faint praise at best, its basically kudos for thinking about a “solution”. He points out all the already existing Massachusetts healthcare laws that are potentially trouble for its success. I actually disagree with Newt on this issue I am very skeptical of the whole notion of a healthcare crisis. Just like I am huge skeptic on anything environmental. Newt has a soft spot for environmental issues and in some cases a soft head regarding it. As far as Newt's marriages go, I have already acknowledged he had the Bill Clinton immaturity problem. That's why Clinton rolled him. That is all past now, and anyway Reagan was divorced, one marriage, two marriages, three, etc. What difference does it make; the non-divorced paradigm was broken by Reagan and it is not coming back. (And yes the “public” circumstances of the Reagan divorce is different from Newt's,or so we are told ! But I wasn't there. Heck I wasn't even born, so to me it is what it is. Anyway as Christians we are supposed to forgive past transgression if the person has truly reformed. I am willing to do that and adopt a let's see if he has! As far as the other candidates go, I liked Perry initially as I did Bachman. However they moved themselves downward in my calculus by their debate performances, campaign behavior, etc. and Newt moved up. This is "political war" and I want political ruthlessness my candidate and I see that in Newt. I don't see that in anybody else. If we don't win this round the next political round will be bad bad, Third World bad!
A possible good reason: Timing. Reveal killer Obama documents only after it is too late for Hillary to be substituted as the 2012 candidate...say in October 2012.
A bad reason: GOP was implicated in covering for Obama in a deal to protect McCain in 2008.
Another bad reason: GOP doesn't want ineligibility precedent to eliminate “too precious” ineligible candidates for VP in 2012 (IMO), such as Marko Rubio, Jindal or Haley, whose parents were not citizens when they were born.
Back to the thread, Newt appears to have used his daughter to make claims regarding his divorce from his cradle-robbing first wife that are not supported by the facts. For this, if true, he has only himself to blame. It is not the crime, but the cover-up that can get you!
Yet, it is still not too late for Newt to rehabilitate himself (again) and emerge as the Non-Mitt after several contenders drop out in the next two weeks.
I might add that a large portion of the electorate is so pissed right now, you might hear a collective cheer shake the nation at the first perpwalk video..
I don’t know about where you live but around these parts divorce records are a matter of public record.
Yeah irreconconcilible differences or adultery.
Guess what? I don’t care how much dirt you Obamabots throw on ANY Republican candidate!
If you want me to give a crap, then produce all the Obama paperwork you have been sitting on for the past 10 years or so.
Then, I might give a crap. Until then, don’t bother me with your petty attacks. Oh, and give your Chicago bosses my best (not).
And a Happy New Year to you.
And where might “around these parts” be, dummie underground?
Kaneljayhawk since 2011-12-27
The relevant comparison would be the divorce records of Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham. And I agree that something is fishy there. I’m not even sure Obama himself knows the actual truth. Like Gingrich’s daughter, he only knows what he’s been told by the adults.
Obama’s birth records are complicated by the fact that he was evidently adopted by his mother’s second husband, had his name changed to Barry Soetoro, and became a citizen of Indonesia. Birth records in such cases are more easily sealed than in the case of divorce.
‘Weird the way those guys can at everyones sealed records but no one can at Barrys past.’
Weird because the GOP E and candidates are too stupid or chicken to demand the media get soetoro/barry/soebarkah/obama’s records unsealed!
Gingrich should/can ask publicly:
‘Now you mighty media has managed to unseal my record, you must go and unseal obama’s records as well. You will be amazed how much you will unseal if you just try!’
Indeed! The release of his sealed records by the king of sealed records started this whole nightmare.
Gingrich should take advantage of the center stage now and relentlessly go after soetoro/soebarkah/bounel/obama whenever they play dirty tricks on him. DO NOT BOTHER TO GO AFTER THE OTHER Rs. Just get to the true obama/soetoro and any nominee will NOT have to run against O!
They unseal his divorce records? demand the media unseal soetoro/soebarkah/obama’s records!
They harp on his 30 year ago ‘infidelity’? demand the media dig into obama’s gay affairs (Larry Sinclair, Donald Young etc.), and MO’s alleged affair with the secret service!
Above all, vett himself in public and demand the media vett obama!
Take the wrench that media is attempting to throw into Gingrich's candidacy and beat them over the head with it.
Just let the court of public opinions do the job!
Gingrich should demand the media unseal obama’s records as well.
He should say -
“Fair ehough. You unseal my records, now go unseal obama’s!”
Then remind them all how obama destroyed his senate opponent by unsealing the opponent’s private records so o ran unopposed!
1st Amendment, no prior restraint. They might be held liable for something after they actually publish, but they can’t be stopped from publishing in the first place.
So he was for it before he was against it. And we’re supposed to expect him to lead the charge for repeal? I just don’t see it.
” However he inexplicably gave up”
Nothing inexplicable about it. His grandchildren were getting death threats, and he believed that the only way to protect them was to bow out.
What he needed was the counsel, from the other republicans, to press on. This he did not receive. The predictable result is that those who didn’t stand behind him, are getting savaged now.
“In both cases they showed they didn’t have the kill the enemy, scatter their flocks and enjoy the lamentations of their women attitude that is needed.”
:I actually disagree with Newt on this issue I am very skeptical of the whole notion of a healthcare crisis.”
You are spot on this assessment. America has the best health care system in the world. Canada’s system is fraught with rationing and loss of primary caregivers due to poor compensation.
“Newt has a soft spot for environmental issues and in some cases a soft head regarding it. As far as Newt’s marriages go, I have already acknowledged he had the Bill Clinton immaturity problem. That’s why Clinton rolled him.”
And that’s why we can’t afford to hitch our ride to his wagon.
“Anyway as Christians we are supposed to forgive past transgression”
Well, the problem is that it’s not a ‘past’ transgression. Repentence would involve going back to wife number 1, but repentence is rarely preached. You must turn away from sin before one can be forgiven for it. Newt wants to have his cake and to eat it too.
“This is “political war” and I want political ruthlessness my candidate and I see that in Newt.”
What happened back in the Clinton years? I don’t see ‘ruthlessness” I see Newt having his same soft head on the crucial issues of the day. This was not present with Reagan. Reagan, had the decency to actually divorce before taking up with Nancy, for which there were many years between. Newt, would take up with someone else and then get married to them. Twice now. The pattern is completely different and indicative to me that in the cruch, you cannot count on Newt.
We can’t afford him blowing it again.
These people need to bring lawsuits against this crap. Thinking Gingrich might be the one to do it if this is true.
Fine, I apologize for lumping you in with the Newt supporters. That is my bad.
Let the digging begin and the chips fall where they may. Zer0 is a straw man — a manufactured fraud. The real question that needs answering is who pulls his (Zer0’s) strings. He isn't smart enough to dream up the crap he does.
Maybe George Soros is the puppet master ....
Gosh, never thought that would happen, after you folks destroyed Cain.
No sympathy from me. What goes around, comes around.
Just desserts for Gingrich. And, he had to know people were going to get a hold of his past divorce proceedings.
At least the CNN source need not worry about being being executed while sitting in a car parked in front of Judah House Praise Baptist Church.
Which one was that?....IRC there was someone mentioning starting a mysterious death list years ago.
We could have used you a month ago!
I want a real conservative too. I’m angry that I can’t vote for the conservative that I want to support because he was forced out.
I’m not sure why you are attacking me. I wasn’t the one posting about how Cain was finished, etc, all the countless articles that came out from politico and posted here on the site.
>> It’s called the prior restraints doctrine...
It seems like a small bridge to cross in order to expose something the courts have ruled sealed.
>> they can and will continue to do so...
Yeah...I remember that so well. It’s almost like the majority here endorsed Obama, yet they didn’t come out and say it. I was confused.
Free Republic has a lot of influence. Because of that, many didn’t vote for McCain. We got what was left.
I want a real conservative. We got a loser last time with McCain. Apparently the correct lesson was “make sure you vote for the loser THIS time,” not “we need to nominate a conservative”.
McCain as bad as he was, was better than Newt, or Romney. Which makes me incredibly sad.
If anyone will call them out on it, it will be Newt. At least he fights back.
We all know it's a “he said - she said” pile of crap.
Now the MSM believes this is a dis qualifier, and a school document from Indonesia declaring Obama an Indonesian citizen isn't.
If “Vlad the Impaler” kissed enough babys and stirred the hearts of enough women, he could win the presidency.
McCain was a physical wreck, an annoying condescending quick tempered liberal prick, yet he went out of his way to endorse Obama and protect Obama. How he lost is still a mystery.
Newt may not have the presidential body, but he may have the wit to prove Obama is a complete ass on the debate stage. His knowledge of American history dwarfs Obamas. Even so, the MSM will run the debates, and Team Obama will call the shots on how the debates are executed. They will minimize his strengths and maximize his weakness.
If Newt runs, we will witness an MSM that will mock his character and appearance incessantly. That said, I think Newt is up to it. I think he'll shove it back up their pipes. Newt or Mitt, It will be one of the ugliest elections in history. Communists get nasty during elections. I honesly fear for our eventual candidates life. Opponents to communist leaders have short lives.
Let it all come out now, we don't need a fatal knifing next October.
They dropped the story!
A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.
Lt. [Leiutenant: name, not rank] Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the departments Criminal Investigations Division.
The hypocrisy shown by the media in this and other issues blows me (Herman Cain) away. My first reaction is always how stupid do they think we are. And then I realize [the collective] we are stupid because they get away with it time after time after time.
4 posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:10:45 AM by Gene Eric: “And CNN can legally publish and speak about the details of sealed records how?”
What Tupelo, FateAmenableToChange and Boogieman
wrote is right.
Printing these is legal, and should be. Releasing the documents to the media may or may not have been legal — I'm not yet sure since divorce records are usually public documents and some here are saying they were misplaced rather than sealed. Quoting the article: “Retired clerk Kenneth Skinner told CNN his deputy took Gingrich's file out of the public records room around 1994, ‘when he (Gingrich) became the center of attention,’ because Skinner feared tampering and theft.”
But in any event, once the media have them, there's nothing illegal about publishing them even if they **WERE** sealed (which in this case they probably weren't). That was settled decades ago by the courts with the Pentagon Papers case, and there are precedents dating back far earlier.
We don't live in Britain with an “Official Secrets Act” allowing judges to issue gag orders. In America, the legal offense, if any, is incurred by the person who leaked the documents to the media. Preventing prosecution of newspapers for reporting things unless they are libelous is what the First Amendment is for.
If FOX News or the Washington Times somehow got hold of some highly incriminating stuff about President Obama or Sen. Harry Reid or Rep. Nancy Pelosi, we would all be clapping our hands when we saw it published. That would be right.
The First Amendment exists for a reason. The framers of our Constitution knew from personal experience what happened when corrupt colonial governors, acting on behalf of British interests, tried to use the courts to control the press.
Government power is too dangerous to give judges the ability to exercise prior review and restraint against the press. If we don't like what a newspaper or TV station is reporting, turn it off and choose another one. Capitalism, not the courts, should control what gets published.