2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumUnivisión’s Jorge Ramos To Gingrich: How Did Your Affair Differ From Clinton’s?
A sign of the times? The most comprehensive, mature, and convincing conversation Newt Gingrich has had with the media so far about his dubious personal history comes to us from Univisión, where their top journalist, Jorge Ramos, sat down for an extensive interview with the candidate released today. Ramos went where few journalists have gone before with Gingrich a comparison of his second known affair with President Clintons and got a fair and long answer.
I take full responsibility for these questions, Ramos began, so as to distance himself from his channel before challenging Gingrich on personal questions. When you were Speaker of the House, you criticized President Clinton for having an extramarital affair. No, replied Gingrich, I criticized him for lying under oath in front of a federal judge, for committing perjury, which is a felony for which normal people go to jail. Ramos continued his question, however, stating that Gingrich was doing the same thing. I was not doing the same thing you didnt hear my answer.
Many people think that is hypocritical. Gingrich responded that that was true because they listen to your question, but they dont listen to the facts. Gingrich did not go on to attack Ramos, however, in the way one would expect him to attack, say, John King. Instead, he fleshed out his answer. Look, Ive been through two divorces, Ive been deposed both times, under oath. Im not a lawyer, and I know its a felony. Clinton is a lawyer, from Yale Law School, and he knew it was a felony. When Ramos repeated that that wasnt exactly assuaging anyones concerns about his character, Gingrich replied with vintage Gingrich: somewhere here there is a synapse missing. I didnt do the same thing; I never lied under oath.
Ramos then left that topic and went into even murkier waters, but asked the question in a way that left him completely protected from a Gingrich attack, asking why he blamed the media for exposing the open marriage question, and whether he believed it to be a legitimate concern. Gingrich attacked ABC for the story, and Ramos continued, Isnt that a fair question about your character? Thats the kind of question that we have to ask. Gingrich agreed. Have I blamed you for asking? No. He went on to explain, again, that the open marriage claim was a lie and then turned to the John King incident: The CNN commentator decided to make it the first question in a national presidential debate, and I thought to myself we have unemployment, we have immigration, we have Afghanistan
and this guy thinks that this kind of trash should be the first question in a presidential debate?
more; http://www.mediaite.com/tv/univisions-jorge-ramos-to-gingrich-how-was-your-affair-different-from-clintons/
Richardo
(38,391 posts)You guys and gals in the US media taking notes? Nah, I didn't think so.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)Most of the condemnation by rePIGlicans was centered on the television clip of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relation with that woman..." and that occurred during what I thought was an interview by a media personality. Did Clinton openly lie to the grand jury or was it the case that he did not directly answer the question?
I ask this because I think Newt is trying to shade is case a bit using Clinton as cover - IMO. He is trying to deflect the severity of the own failings by pointing attention to lying rather adultery and the and consequent divorces.
SCantiGOP
(13,862 posts)And he knew when he was in front of the grand jury that the laws of Washington DC applied. It was established case law that in DC 'sexual relations' was defined as intercourse. Since his involvement with Lewinsky involved only oral sex, it was technically the truth to say he had never had sexual relations with her. It was obviously a somewhat dishonest semantic difference, but it did not meet the standard of perjury before a grand jury.
3waygeek
(2,034 posts)also ordered all testimony related to Lewinsky stricken. If that's the case, nothing in that testimony could be considered perjury. Perjury is a lie or knowing misrepresentation about material facts -- stricken testimony is by definition immaterial.
atreides1
(16,064 posts)Maybe he just forgot about this part of the marriage vows "... and forsaking all others, be faithful only to her so long as you both shall live?"
madmom
(9,681 posts)the first place. It was sex between two consenting adults, in other words, none of their damned business!
Beacool
(30,247 posts)And Bill should have refused to answer it.
K8-EEE
(15,667 posts)LOL I have had a crush on him since high school which was a LONG time ago....he was our local (KMEX) reporter before being national w/Univision. Newt looks like a garden gnome sitting by Jorge!!