Originally Posted By skinnerbox From CNN's intrepid reporters: <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html?eref=edition" target="_blank">http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12...=edition</a> An excerpt from the article: <> After initially being told that the divorce documents were sealed, CNN on Thursday obtained the folder containing the filings in the divorce, which had been stashed away for years in a Carroll County, Georgia, court clerk's drawer. 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. "During these years, you had to make sure those papers were there," Skinner said. "People could go in those files and get things out. We didn't have enough security to control it." Current Carroll County Clerk of Court Alan Lee said he called the retired deputy clerk, who told him where to find the papers, after CNN began looking for them last week. The documents, and interviews with people close to the couple at the time, contradict the Gingrich claim about who wanted the divorce. Newt Gingrich filed a divorce complaint on July 14, 1980, in Carroll County, saying that "the marriage of the parties is irretriebably (sic) broken." Jackie Battley Gingrich, the congressman's wife and the mother of Jackie Gingrich Cushman, responded by asking the judge to reject her husband's filing. "Defendant shows that she has adequate and ample grounds for divorce, but that she does not desire one at this time," her petition said. "Although defendant does not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken, defendant has been hopeful that an arrangement for temporary support of defendant and the two minor daughters of the parties could be mutually agreed upon without the intervention of this court," her petition said. "All efforts to date have been unsuccessful." When CNN presented the information found in the divorce file to the Gingrich campaign, its spokesman stood by the contention that it was Gingrich's ex-wife who asked for the divorce in 1980. "Carroll County Georgia court documents accurately show Newt Gingrich filed for a divorce from his wife Jackie Battley, but it was Jackie Battley who requested the divorce," spokesman R.C. Hammond said in an e-mail to CNN Saturday. "Gingrich, her husband, obtained legal counsel and filed the divorce papers initiating the legal proceedings." "It was the same legal proceedings that determined and set the amounts of payments Gingrich would provide to support his two daughters," Hammond said. Atlanta divorce lawyer Jim Peterson, who was not involved in the Gingrich proceedings, said the wife's divorce filings make it "pretty plain" that she did not want the divorce. "She obviously didn't want the divorce, on the face of the pleadings," Peterson said. One reason a defendant in a divorce would deny it was irretrievably broken would be "to make you stay in the marriage and put the screws to you to make it as difficult as they possibly can," Peterson added. Jackie Gingrich, who has rarely spoken to the media about the divorce, declined CNN's request for an interview. A friend said that Jackie Gingrich did not want to comment out of concern for her daughters and grandchildren. In a brief interview in 1985, she told the Washington Post: "He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise." <> Another lengthy piece; more at the above link. Further into the article are statements from Newt's former campaign treasurer during that time, who claims that Newt wanted the divorce because he felt Jackie wasn't young enough or pretty enough to be First Lady. And what a surprise... the 28-year-old congressional aide who became his second wife in 1981 after Newt divorced Jackie, was divorced by Newt in 2000 while he was having an affair with yet another congressional aide, who was 34 years old at the time. She is now his third wife. Why would anyone trust anything this guy says or promises to do. He lies as easily as he breathes.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper If lying about women was a means by which one would be disqualified for running for President then we would have had 8 years of Bob Dole.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 divorce papers usually are written when one side just gives up. I can tell you my parents divorce proceedings also make it look like both sides wanted out, in fact one side being the reason more than the other-- completely opposite of true. one parent finally said - enough- 'whatever you want'- so that the kids didn't go thru even more protracted proceedings. I am not sure what exactly this means about anything- except as usual it is more info than any of us really should know anyway. I am not a Newt supporter- but I think this means little to nothing - and neither party has any kind of fidelity card to play- going back to at least FDR.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 And lying to the public about personal matters at this point obvously means little after you have a sitting president do it directly at the entire American public and it really didn't matter in the end. Sad but morals and ethics are not items we judge our pols by any longer...I'm not sure there'd be any candidates
Originally Posted By wahooskipper What this really tells me is that CNN can't fill 24 hours a day with news. Not picking on them. FOX is the same way. I think 24 Hour Newschannels are a big reason why our country is in the condition it is in right now.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper And, I say we would have better candidates if we didn't subject them to the insatiable press.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "And lying to the public about personal matters at this point obvously means little after you have a sitting president do it directly at the entire American public and it really didn't matter in the end." Well... sorta. At the point that happened, Clinton had been elected twice and been in office for 6 years. Then when the most rabid portion of the GOP went after him (including Gingrich!), must of the public's basic response was "look, this was not a great thing to do, but it was NOT the kind of 'high crime' the founders intended as grounds for impeachment." Some people still do care about this stuff, though, and particularly care if they know about it BEFORE they might vote somebody into office. Obviously, fewer people care than used to; witness someone like David Vitter getting reelected after his hooker dalliances came to light. But witness also Spitzer resigning after his came to light, and Cain dropping out of the race... part of it is how the pol decides to play it, and part of it is - if indeed a campaign is going on when the revelations come out - how the opponents decide to play it. To me, this matters more for what seems to me confirmation of a bald-faced lie - "Hey, SHE wanted the divorce" - than for the affair we already knew about. It disrupts the "narrative" Newt has been assiduously assembling. (Dissembling??)
Originally Posted By Wingman1969 Wow, a career politician lies about something and people seem shocked about it.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper On the contrary, nobody is shocked about it and that is one of the fundamental problems we have in America right now.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <At the point that happened, Clinton had been elected twice and been in office for 6 years. Then when the most rabid portion of the GOP went after him (including Gingrich!), must of the public's basic response was "look, this was not a great thing to do, but it was NOT the kind of 'high crime' the founders intended as grounds for impeachment." yes, there were rabid haters and blind supporters at that point..and of course the 'crime' was not impeachable.. and although I do not like what he did, it was the lying part that bothered me more. After that point I questioned everything he said as "really the truth- or some version of it" that bothers me more in a president.. i WANT to be able to trust them
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Actually, Clinton lied about women long before Lewinsky blew into the picture. Affairs dogged him as a Governor as well. In fact, due to the growing maliciousness of the press I'd be surprised if he got elected today. Interesting, his behavior is the reason his behavior wouldn't be tolerated in today's press.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>long before Lewinsky blew into the picture<< It wasn't the picture.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan A person wishing to be consistent in their moral outrage could never in a million years support Newt Gingrich if they were offended by the behavior of Bill Clinton. But politics is an area where people often cast aside consistency, consistently. Look at the enormous price Anthony Wiener paid for a relatively minor act. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich, multiple documented philanderer, is running at the top of the GOP currently. People care about this stuff really only when it's a political enemy that's involved.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>People care about this stuff really only when it's a political enemy that's involved<< Conversely, when a President is faithful and has an exceptional family life, they don't care when he's black and/or a Democrat. Here's a near-flawless example of a great family, and yet far-right conservatives don't even trust him to speak to their children about staying in school.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Actually, one of the things I've most admired about Obama to this point is the way he has handled this from a family perspective. I think he has made a balanced approach to shielding the girls while also giving them (and the country) an appropriate amount of time in the spotlight. I applaud Michelle's focus on healthy living practices for children, be it diet, exercise, play, etc. Gingrich isn't going to get the Republican nomination.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <People care about this stuff really only when it's a political enemy that's involved.< I and many others carea bout it all the time --especially the truthfulness part. The President has the 'lasy word' and if he got on TV tonight and said - I need everyone in the country to do this...because...I'd want to bea ble to believe him. It has more to do with being honest to all around them- and philandering is a dishonest act - but that dishonesty isbetween two people, not 200 million. If philandering were a measureig stick-- the Kennedy's clan would be akin to the Dalton gang-- and Jimmy Carter would likely be most revered
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I applaud Michelle's focus on healthy living practices for children, be it diet, exercise, play, etc.<< But you're a reasonable person. You've seen how insane many on the right have been about all of that.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper As my wife says, "if you are going to lie to your wife you are going to lie to anyone." She was a pretty big fan of John Edwards...until she wasn't. To be fair, she actually had me supporting him and I even wrote a letter to him telling him he won over a conservative...until he crapped all over himself.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<At the point that happened, Clinton had been elected twice and been in office for 6 years. Then when the most rabid portion of the GOP went after him (including Gingrich!), must of the public's basic response was "look, this was not a great thing to do, but it was NOT the kind of 'high crime' the founders intended as grounds for impeachment.>> <yes, there were rabid haters and blind supporters at that point..and of course the 'crime' was not impeachable.. and although I do not like what he did, it was the lying part that bothered me more.> Well, me too. And, I think, most of the country. It bothered us that he lied about it, and it further bothered us that the Republicans at the time wasted our collective time and energy on an impeachment that was never going to succeed in the first place based on something that was hardly some threat to the Republic. <that bothers me more in a president.. i WANT to be able to trust them> Which is why I just don't get the pass Gingrich gets from some just because "we know about it already" or "it's old news." And I further don't get why it sunk Cain but NOT Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich got his rise in the polls (now ending for unrelated reasons) precisely WHEN Cain started falling. Which means plenty of people decided they couldn't support Cain, apparently because he'd had an affair (the sexual harassment claims - to my mind more serious - didn't hurt him in the polls), and then threw their support to... Gingrich. The current state of our politics is curious to say the least.
