Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Mitt Romney sides with Nancy Pelosi

Mitt Romney sides with Nancy Pelosi

Mitt Romney’s campaign is in trouble.  The trouble is not just the South Carolina vote count.  Romney’s internal polling almost certainly also showed that he was behind in Florida, as public polling released today reflects.

More worrisome for Romney is a growing chorus of doubters within the Republican establishment and conservative media who are beginning to wonder out loud whether Romney is electable in the primaries or general election.

Mr. Inevitability has left the house.

So Romney is going on attack.  The centerpiece will be Newt Gingrich’s consent to a single ethics violation (out of 84 charged) in the 1990s.  The process was highly politicized by Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi.  Newt ultimately was vindicated by the IRS on the issue, but you wouldn’t know it from Romney’s speech yesterday in Florida:

“Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,” the former  Massachusetts governor said. “He was a leader for four years as speaker of the  House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader  and he had to resign in disgrace. I don’t know whether you knew that, he  actually resigned after four years, in disgrace.

Romney continued: “He was investigated over an ethics panel and had to make a  payment associated with that and then his fellow Republicans, 88 percent of his  Republicans voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich. He has not had a record of  successful leadership.”

In 1999, Brent Bozell wrote a great column about how the media covered up Newt’s vindication, Newt Is Vindicated, But Nobody Knows It:

The judgment is in. After three and a half years of investigation, the IRS has cleared Newt Gingrich and his allied nonprofit groups of any violation of the tax laws in the controversy over his television history course “Renewing American Civilization.”

So after having run countless news reports highlighting the accusations that ultimately forced Gingrich to pay a $300,000 fine, did the media correct the record with a decent airing of the decision? Are you ready? ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted exactly zero seconds to Newt Gingrich’s vindication. Only CNN’s Brooks Jackson filed a decent TV report, on the early-evening show “Inside Politics.” …

Gingrich issued a statement that clearly expressed his feelings: “I consider this a full and complete vindication. I urge my colleagues to go back and read their statements and watch how they said them, with no facts, based on nothing more than a desire to politically destroy a colleague.”

But the damage hadn’t been done simply by devious politicians like Bonior, but by journalists. In the face of Newt’s innocence, some reporters couldn’t muster even a regret.

Bozell followed up that column last month, noting that the media continues to hide Newt’s vindication.

It has been 4,689 days since the IRS formally cleared Newt Gingrich of any  violation of tax law.  It’s been 4,689 days since ABC, CBS, and NBC have  had the opportunity to report it. What the heck.  Why not today?  Now  is the time for these networks to report the truth for once.  The networks  owe it to the American people to report the fact that in 1999 the IRS completely  vindicated Gingrich.

Between December 15, 1996 and January 31, 1997 the network morning and  evening newscasts filed a staggering 244 stories. Total number of network  stories on the news that Newt was completely innocent? Zero. That’s beyond  pathetic. Oh and what about CNN?  We found that the cable  network filed one — count ’em, one — story. They’re probably exhausted by all  that effort, so we’ll let them off the hook.

Now you can add to the list the Romney campaign, which uses the worst of Nancy Pelosi’s machinations to its advantage, and like the mainstream media, hides the truth.

Romney likes to criticize Newt for shooting a harmless but ill-advised commercial while sitting on a couch with Pelosi.  What Romney is doing is far worse.  He is embracing the worst of Peolosi’s smear tactics and mainstream media connivance.

Update:  Thanks to Shortwave8669 in the Tip Line for the video link:

Update No. 2Mark Levin blasts Christie for parroting old left-wing ethics propaganda against Newt.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Why bother with an attack so clearly vacuous and so easily dismissed? Captain Inevitable becomes Corporal Desperate.

    I’m glad the professor put this post up. I think we need to repeat the correct information. It’s been dismaying to me how many people seem only to remember headlines about ethics violations (plural).

    MerryCarol in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 23, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Romney’s attack is not “clearly vacuous”, because Gingrich was indeed reprimanded by his fellow Republicans, and he indeed did resign as a “failed leader” when he was targeted as the 1998 post-election whipping boy. There are Republicans (Santorum, Peter King, et. al.) who are speaking out to this day to condemn Newt’s leadership style. Also, notice that Romney did not describe the $300,000 as a “fine”, rather as a “payment associated” with the ethics investigation. So, Romney is justified to attack Newt on these weaknesses.

    However, any ads that Romney’s campaign or Super PACs run stating that the $300,000 payment was a “fine” are fundamentally false, and Newt is justified (and smart) to go after them with threats of litigation.

    This is the Newt-Romney showdown I’ve been waiting for; both have their guns drawn, and I will endorse the last man standing.

    Note to Romney: I will not root for you if I see one of your snipers on top of the Red Dog Saloon.

      janitor in reply to MerryCarol. | January 23, 2012 at 11:54 am

      a “payment associated” with the ethics investigation. So, Romney is justified to attack Newt on these weaknesses.

      However, any ads that Romney’s campaign or Super PACs run stating that the $300,000 payment was a “fine” are fundamentally false…

      So the con man technique of deliberately giving the wrong impression, i.e. misleading (lying) without actually saying the words, is okay?

        MerryCarol in reply to janitor. | January 23, 2012 at 12:04 pm

        I would classify Newt’s attack on Romney’s Bain record as a “con man technique” as well.

        I wouldn’t personally label it “con man”; to me, it’s just politics as usual.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to MerryCarol. | January 23, 2012 at 1:33 pm

          That Gingrich was totally cleared is easily demonstrated. To bring it up as if he wasn’t is vacuous (without content, empty). Sure, it’s politics, but it’s dumb politics because it won’t work, in fact, it will work against Romney.

          The Bain attack was also pure politics. But it worked.

          MerryCarol in reply to MerryCarol. | January 23, 2012 at 1:59 pm

          The Bain attack worked? Newt quickly and wisely backed away from that line of attack when the OccupyWallStreet rhetoric lashed him on the backside. Perry didn’t back off — and he’s gone.

          I will be watching Romney closely tonight to see if sticks to the facts and stays on the high road. If he attacks Newt on his leadership record, that is fair game.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to MerryCarol. | January 23, 2012 at 3:24 pm

          Yes, it worked. It is a common ploy in politics to hurl attacks, even silly ones, as I thought the Bain thing was, not because they are substantive, but it hopes your opponent will fumble the response. Romney fumbled the response to Bain, just as fumbled the response to calls he release his tax returns.

          MerryCarol in reply to MerryCarol. | January 23, 2012 at 3:57 pm

          HankHawk, I give you credit for sticking with the argument, but now you’re straying from your initial premise which is that Romney should not bother with an unsubstantiated, i.e. “vacuous”, attack.

          Now it seems you are saying, it’s okay to hurl a “silly unsubstantiated” long bomb as long as Newt is the quarterback and Romney fumbles the response.

          It would be very dumb politics if Romney did NOT make this play; now Newt is on the receiving end and it’s up to him to not fumble the ball.

          Newt is the biggest linebacker in the primary Super Bowl, and my expectations are that his defensive game will be strong. Florida voters (those lucky dogs!) will get decide the game score.

          MerryCarol in reply to MerryCarol. | January 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm

          Please forgive my lame football analogies… I’m a field hockey gal 🙂

          Although, I did play some powderpuff football in college…

          Henry Hawkins in reply to MerryCarol. | January 23, 2012 at 5:14 pm

          There’s an aspect of running for office that is somewhat like what they advise trial attorneys: ‘never ask a question of a witness unless you already know the answer’, amended in politics to ‘never launch an attack unless you’re sure it won’t boomerang on you’. Gingrich is besting Romney on this big time. While each is guilty of vacuity in attacks, at least Gingrich is picking those Romney fumbles (Bain and tax returns).

          These are minor elements in the Gingrich surge. The same thing powers his current surge as did his first surge – Newt is articulating well the conservative mesaage and is showing his will to fight for the conservative, middle class base that pays for 95% of everything in sight.

          I played ice hockey from age four through undergrad. My eldest daughter lettered in field hockey at an ACC school. Great sport.

in one weekend, we found out that santorum really won iowa and newt beat romney handily in his (newt’s) back yard. The above post is romney’s response to this crisis. I think he failed.

Then think about Newt’s campaign hurdles; almost clintonian in height. And he is succeeding.

Go Newt!

Funny how folks look at things differently. Some think Newts win was simply a debate blip like New Hampshire in 2000.
Well? Maybe others see something different:

The fight which was held at the Convention Hall in Miami Beach started at 0310 GMT and Liston was widely expected to easily retain his title.

But when the fight began, Clay’s speed and sting soon turned the tables on Liston. Initially, Liston had managed to pin Clay to the ropes during the first two rounds but in round three Liston was forced to retreat, with his left eye pouring blood. Rounds 4, 5 and 6 were dominated by Clay and Liston was reeling.

    RexGrossmanSpiral in reply to jimzinsocal. | January 23, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Yeah, I do not understand why people think Newt won only because of his 2 SC debate performances. He’s had several very good debates.

      The problem for Mitt is that you can’t take away the substance of what he is saying – people remember why they gravitate towards a candidate, and there hasn’t been any reason to gravitate towards Romney

      On the other hand, Newt says what everyone else is thinking, or explains answers they want and like to hear. Newt doesn’t take idiotic media/candidate attacks laying down, and isn’t afraid to call a Conspiracy Nut a Lunatic when he is on stage being forced to listen to one spilling the “America makes Muslims mad at us” nonsense or a Community Organizer a Socialist, Alinksy Extremist when comparing views.

      You just can’t take away constantly being glaringly correct (or on the flip side, unbelievably boring, practiced/coached and wishy-washy on views and beliefs)

DINORightMarie | January 23, 2012 at 10:07 am

Newt needs to publicly call out Romney on this – and post the FACTS on his site (if he hasn’t already). It would also be great if he linked to Bozell’s articles, as you did, to reveal the MSM bias against Newt.

Romney will say anything to get elected. He has tried to be “above the fray” and let his PAC do the dirty work. Now, however, he exposes that it is him – HIM – who is pulling the strings on “the politics of personal destruction” against anyone who stands in the way of his goal: the White House.

Romney proves he is thin-skinned, can’t stand on his record, and is unable to address the issues; he would be attacking Santorum, Paul – anyone who was in the #1 position.

He can’t be the nominee, if we want to turn our country around. If he is, then he will require his feet being held to the fire to do what our nation needs, IMHO.

I hope this backfires and puts even more supporters behind Newt.

    I think Gingrich needs to take out an ad in Florida newspapers and make clear TV commercials on this. Many voters don’t read blogs or websites.

About as surprising as a sunrise, or more fittingly, a sunset. Romney’s pattern of lifting Leftist talking points has been well established. But once again, the poor clod misses the point. What excites the base and wins converts to your cause is not stealing Leftist narratives to use against conservatives but boldly advancing your own narratives to confront the Left and media.

No doubt he thinks this is “getting tough”, when in fact it’s only formalizing a strategy that’s already failed. It’s defensive offensiveness.

RefudiateObama2012 | January 23, 2012 at 10:22 am

Here’s a good site that gives many links showing that Gingrich was exonerated.

http://rogersdaughter.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/newt-was-cleared-2/

If you look at what was done to Gingrich in retaliation of Clinton’s impeachment, it has a lot of parallels to what happened to Sarah Palin when Obama unleashed his minions on her.

brilliant turnabout, sir.

Reminiscent of the political assasination of Ted Stevens, six term senator from Alaska, cleared of corruption charges, after he lost the 2008 election. He died in a plane crash in 2010. Let’s not forget Scooter Libby. Seems to be a trend in false allegations by the left to destroy those on the right – aided and abetted by the media.

“In an order, Sullivan wrote that Schuelke submitted a 500-page report that found Stevens’s prosecution had been “permeated by systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated his defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness.”

Schuelke investigated prosecutors Brenda Morris, William Welch, Edward Sullivan, Joseph Bottini and James Goeke, as well as Nicholas Marsh, who committed suicide last year.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/special-prosecutor-justice-attorneys-shouldnt-face-charges-in-stevens-case/2011/11/21/gIQAX7n9iN_story.html

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/153314

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 23, 2012 at 10:44 am

This is not a smart move by Team Romney. Should the republican rank and file associate what happened to Gingrich as being the same thing that happened to Palin… it’ll all be over for Romney. He’ll have marginalized himself from the base to a degree that quite probably would be impossible to overcome. If the conservative base starts thinking of Newt as having been ‘Palinized’, then Gingrich may well have the conservative vote locked down.

The good thing about Romney’s scorched earth efforts … it will remove a lot of fuel from the fires in the general. It’s like clearing brush from around the house when there is danger of fire.

And it seems this is already backfiring on Romney. The winds are shifting, and doctor Mitt Jekyll is turning into Mr. “Hide”. (trying to rip Newt, but hiding his own record? analogy needs a little work)

And all this network time makes the candidates familiar. If they can love a Snookie, they can love a Newt. 🙂

“He was a leader for four years as speaker of the House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and he had to resign in disgrace.

What I love is this:

Romney was a leader for four years as an extreme Liberal Governor. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and had to drop out of the re-election process because of disgraceful polling indicating there was no possible way he could win re-election.

47th in job creation, pitiful 1.4% growth in a time the rest of the country was in a boom, witnessing 5.4% on average, and more extreme-left Liberal accomplishments then you can shake a stick at (Romneycare, unilateral Gay Marriage, Free Abortions, Liberal and Activist Judges, harshest Anti-Gun laws permanent, etc.) now THAT’S Disgraceful! Well, for a “true Conservative” at least…

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Darkstar58. | January 23, 2012 at 11:49 am

    Coulter claimed (on Red Eye a while back) that if Newt won, the election would be about Newt … so we needed a generic conservative like Romney.

    I think she meant a generic liberal like Romney. But he has his own issues that will allow Obama’s attack dogs to make it about Mitt. We need a candidate that can bite back, not just roll over and expect his belly to be rubbed. Mitt wants to fight, but doesn’t seem to have it in him, partly because he is only pretending to be conservative.

If Gingrich wins the nomination, the Republican party will experience the biggest case of buyer’s remorse in a generation.

    Sanddog in reply to Ryan. | January 23, 2012 at 11:28 am

    And it would be sunshine, rainbows and unicorns with Romney?

      Darkstar58 in reply to Sanddog. | January 23, 2012 at 11:39 am

      Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows,
      Everything that’s wonderful is what I feel when we’re together,
      Brighter than a lucky penny,
      When you’re near the rain cloud disappears, dear,
      And I feel so fine just to know that you are mine.

      …well, at least for the Democrats and Establishment (until the election)

      Hardly. But Hot Air’s Tina Korbe reflects what I think will be the collective feeling the morning after Newt clinches the nomination:

      “I definitely get why we wanted somebody other Romney. But remind me again how we settled on Newt???”

      http://twitter.com/#!/TinaKorbe/status/160891478271463425

      Gingrich is just a bomb waiting to go off.

        Darkstar58 in reply to Ryan. | January 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm

        Gingrich is just a bomb waiting to go off.

        That’s what we keep hearing. Meanwhile, we wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and…

        Maybe its like this whole Global Warming thing – its definitely, without a doubt, positively, going to show evidence of itself; it’s just going a tad slower then Gore promised.

          I’m just going off of Gingrich’s tenure in the House as Speaker. I was around for that and watched him implode. I don’t see the evidence that he has changed.

          Hope Change in reply to Darkstar58. | January 23, 2012 at 2:15 pm

          Ryan, if you sincerely believe that Newt “imploded” back in the 90’s, then you will presumably be relieved to know that Newt was set up and bushwacked by Democrats and his own supposed Republican allies. Newt did not “implode.”

          “Implode ” is a MSM word, meaning that they can find something to make into a big controversy, and the American people will not be able to find out the truth, and the target of the implosion is never given a chance to explain the truth of what happened.

          Remember the big “right wing social engineering is no better than left-wing social engineering” comment that was supposedly trashing Paul Ryan?

          Newt was answering the question whether it would be a good thing for Republicans to FORCE an UNPOPULAR plan on the American people, as Obama had done with Obamacare.

          Listen to the question: should Republicans “buck” popular opinion…?
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsHw92j9P0Q

          It’s exhilarating to see all these original sources, innit? Make up your own mine, America!

          And Ryan has since changed his plan a little, as I understand it, to respond to the issues of inflexibility.

          Here’s more, from another commenter today:

          RefudiateObama2012 | January 23, 2012 at 10:22 am
          Here’s a good site that gives many links showing that Gingrich was exonerated.
          http://rogersdaughter.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/newt-was-cleared-2/
          If you look at what was done to Gingrich in retaliation of Clinton’s impeachment, it has a lot of parallels to what happened to Sarah Palin when Obama unleashed his minions on her.

          The American people now have the power of the internet. The “implode” routine is a function of assassination by the MSM, and their denial of any chance for the target to explain. It is soooo yesterday.

          I hope this is reassuring to you.

          I don’t think the MSM’s “implode” tactic is going to work anymore. Millions of people are already signed up to the Newt Networks, and other internet sources. Drudge, InstaPundit, Legal Insurrection — lots of places to go to find out the scoop.

          Churchill said that a lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its pants.

          The internet is changing that. Power to the People; the little People.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Ryan. | January 23, 2012 at 11:41 am

    Concern trolls are always right and always looking out for others. Maybe we better dump Newt after all.

    Thanks, Ryan. We almost committed a grievous error, but thanks to you we can change things for the better.

Thanks for this post. I watched Mike Huckabee’s interview of Mitt Romney last night, and he again repeated a lot of misinformation about Newt. He’s got his answers memorized, and he was determined to deliver them letter-perfect.

Is there a way to contact the Romney campaign and complain about their left-wing Nancy Pelosi tactics? I would love to explain their error to them.

I heard he’s got an unpaid parking ticket from 1974, why don’t you look into that Flipper

[…] best pal, Rino Romney, might say. Professor Jacobson, over at Legal Insurrection, has a very nice blog on this, including the CNN report on Newt’s being cleared by the IRS. […]

[…] » Mitt Romney sides with Nancy Pelosi – Le·gal In·sur·rec·ti… So Romney is going on attack.  The centerpiece will be Newt Gingrich’s consent to a single ethics violation (out of 84 charged) in the 1990s.  The process was highly politicized by Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi.  Newt ultimately was vindicated by the IRS on the issue, but you wouldn’t know it from Romney’s speech yesterday in Florida: “Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,” the former  Massachusetts governor said. “He was a leader for four years as speaker of the  House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader  and he had to resign in disgrace. I don’t know whether you knew that, he  actually resigned after four years, in disgrace. […]

He was exonerated on the legal charges by the IRS, but he copped to misleading the ethics committee to the tune of $300,000. I think Prof. Jacobson knows the difference, and is being disingenuous. Not surprising for a lawyer.

I’m no fan of Romney, but geez, Prof., let’s not pretend that 88% of House Republicans didn’t agree with Pelosi when they voted to censure him. It was overwhelming and devastating. This ain’t a parking ticket.

    Hope Change in reply to skeptical. | January 23, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    Hey, skeptical, I don’t think so. He agreed to pay for the investigation. It is not true that it was a fine.

    Have you learned enough about Nancy “you have to pass the legislation in order to find out what’s in it” and “I fly my family across the country countless times on a government jet” Pelosi to understand what a hatchet-job political assassination this was?

    And yes, Republicans joined the Democrats. Gosh, why would they do that?

    Was it because Newt was trying to keep the budget down and kept saying no to people who wanted to drag the fatted calf home to their district? Was it because Congress was filled with people who wanted prestige and the power to gain money for themselves, and hand money out to their friends, and Newt was telling them “no”?

    Newt was attacked by Democrats who have since shown themselves to be vicious partisan malfeasors, and betrayed by Republicans whose agenda was for themselves and not for the country or the national welfare.

    And Newt was cleared. There was no fine.

    Here’s a good site that gives many links showing that Gingrich was exonerated.
http://rogersdaughter.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/newt-was-cleared-2/


      skeptical in reply to Hope Change. | January 24, 2012 at 12:47 pm

      Yes, I see the difference between a “fine” and a “penalty” to reimburse the committee for costs due to his misleading the committee means that your guy is A-Okay. Similarly misleading the ethics committee is okay because, while he admits he misled the ethics committee, he says he didn’t intend to.

      And we should attribute the worst possible motives to nearly all the House Republicans for voting as they did. The lack of pork made them do it.

      Very compelling.

skeptical | January 23, 2012 at 12:37 pm

O.K. the Repubs sided with Pelosi to go after Gingrich. What was their motivation? I seem to recall that there was a rebellion ready with people to take over. So, this was in the works for a while. I doubt very much that the politicos at the time were doing this for altruistic reasons! There is always more to the story. Might be useful to delve into it a bit more.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to MAB. | January 23, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    The politics involved with winning votes for public office are dirty enough, but nothing is dirtier than the behind the scenes politics that go on when a congressional majority or minority leader shows vulnerability and his/her office may be up for grabs. Public office politics is bean bag by comparison.

      Henry Hawkins:

      You are so right. The more attention I pay to politics the more of a sour taste it leaves in my mouth. It says something about the human race (not very complimentary), doesn’t it.

    skeptical in reply to MAB. | January 24, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    I’m happy to attribute all kinds of horrible motivations to those who voted to censure the Speaker of the House. Usually, though, it doesn’t help a caucus to humiliate their leader, unless their leader’s smell can spread to them. That’s usually why a party circles the wagon around someone who should be censured, or censures someone they would otherwise defend, regardless of guilt or innocence.

    But there’s also the fact that he admitted he misled the ethics committee. Whatever behind the scenes game we can attribute, there are glaring aspects of this. They say he misled them, he says he misled them, and the House voted overwhelmingly to censure him. I honestly don’t think that speaks very well of his ability as a leader: he says he delegated some of the most important legal work of his career to incompetent people, and that he didn’t review it, and he couldn’t get his own caucus to stick with him.

    Very well, they were all Brutuses stabbing him in the back. Very well, he was innocent of major glaring LEGAL charges. But he admitted to the ethics violation of misleading the committee. He’s the ONLY sitting Speaker of the House to do that. He resigned in what was considered widely to be disgrace. He’s not a quitter, he felt he had justification, so he was forced out. That just doesn’t sit very well, and no excuses remove that.

    He called out Clinton for misleading the court under oath. Clinton agreed he misled them under oath, and had to surrender his law license, and got no compensation for the costs of the investigation, which he would have been entitled to if he had been acquitted. He wasn’t. He says it was a frivolous law suit that was eventually dropped. Doesn’t matter. He attributes all kinds of reckless and destructive motives to his accusers. Doesn’t matter.

    It’s disingenuous to pretend that wasn’t an ethical violation. Plainly, it was.

Florida polling by Rasmussen had Mitt over Newt by 22 on 1/12, now on 1/23 they have Mitt down by 9. That’s a 31 point swing in 11 days.

Mitt is desperate. Matt Drudge is doing everything he can to help.

As I write this, 3 headlines on Drudge all quoting Romney:

MITT FIRE: SPEAKER NEWT ‘RESIGNED IN DISGRACE’…

Calls Gingrich ‘Highly Erratic’…

‘It’s an October surprise every day’…

This is worth reiterating IMHO, because it is the power of the internet to uncover the truth and put it at our fingertips. I posted this at the tip line here at Legal Insurrection — but in case some didn’t see it there —

I saw this link in the comments here at Legal Insurrection at your post Mitt Romney Sides with Nancy Pelosi:

RefudiateObama2012 | January 23, 2012 at 10:22 am
Here’s a good site that gives many links showing that Gingrich was exonerated.
http://rogersdaughter.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/newt-was-cleared-2/
If you look at what was done to Gingrich in retaliation of Clinton’s impeachment, it has a lot of parallels to what happened to Sarah Palin when Obama unleashed his minions on her.
Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

The Roger’s Daughter post is a a blog called Trying Times. It has links to original sources showing that Newt was exonerated. Newt’s exoneration, of course is a secret shrouded in total blackout mystery by the MSM.

Let the truth be known and shine forth because of the Power of the Internet.

Thank you, Roger’s Daughter and Refudiate Obama 2012.

2010 Hope 2012 Change.

Nice post Prof and thanks for clearing up the number of charges Newt had filed against him in the 90s. For years now I have thought the number was 67 and now I have read it was 84, thanks. 😉

[…] fact, Mitt’s arguments mirror Nancy Pelosi’s arguments. First, here’s Mitt: “Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,” the former […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend