Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned… MORE… Developing…She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours. Her explosive revelations are set to rock the campaign. But now a “civil war” has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!
ABCNEWS suits determined it would be “unethical” to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary …
… A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.
I don’t even know the content of this interview or what further revelations she could have on Gingrich, but unless it involves cross-dressing, drug trafficking, or other salacious details, I’m going to feel completely let down.
We all know that Newt Gingrich cheated on two of his three wives. He cheated on his wife Jackie, who had cancer, with Marianne Gingrich, the woman who gave an interview to ABC. If the details are simply that he was unkind to her or didn’t treat her right, well, surprise! You were the mistress! You helped break up a marriage and thus forfeited your right to be outraged when the next mistress usurped your spot as the new wife. I have no pity for the “other woman.” I guess that’s why I find Marianne Gingrich’s late-to-the-game interview so odd. Could there be any bigger bombshell than the story of their union?
That being said, ABC’s decision to drop this interview after the votes are counted in South Carolina has just been thwarted as the first shoe has been dropped. Everyone now expects the other one; they know that something is going to come out about Gingrich’s second marriage because of the Drudge headline. How will this affect voting? How will it affect fundraising? And will the details of the interview sufficiently match any loss of support that Gingrich may receive as a result?
As my colleague John Nolte said, “Drudge is amazing. He can literally stop the world from turning, something no MSM outlet can do.”
Does this mean we’ll also start hearing about Vera Baker from broadcast media?
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
200 Comments
Unless it's something truly weird, as you suggest, Dana, I don't think what she says will have much impact.
Unfortunately, we all know what mischief former whatevers get up to and people, sane ones at least, take what they say with a grain of salt.
If you listen to my former, you better have a bucket of salt handy!
I am a voter in SC. Whatever this is, I want to know how it is supposedly "unethical" to withhold the information from me until after I have made my choice. Call me silly, but I don't follow Nancy Pelosi's philosophy of passing it so I can find out what's in it. I have the right to know. Now. Believe it or not, I'm a big girl, I can actually evaluate the information before casting my vote.
He probably didn't put the toilet seat down! LOL!
PS. Where are Duh-bama's College transcripts? LOL
Et Tu…Marianne.
Another candidate bites the dust so all we have left is a squeaky clean ball-less board room geek. Long for the day before instant communications.
Something tells me they won't worry so much about timelines come October.
And speaking of the general election, don't be surprised, if Newt wins next week, that they decide to hang on to the tape a bit longer…in the interest of fairness, of course.
Even cross-dressing shouldn't be enough to change your support for someone if you really believe in their cause, although I don't think it did Giuliani any favors.
"Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview." The power plays in politics are absolutely stunning. These people deserve to eat each other. Why on earth would even a scorned love want to bring all this attention and drama on themselves? Don't they have better things to do?
True.
But Newt would be an even uglier chick than Rudy.
For Republicans a scandal is a career killer, for Dems a resume enhancer. At this point does Gingrich have to be a nice guy to get the job done? I have had enough of nice guys. We need a kick ass hell raiser. Maybe he will appeal more to the Liberals now! And remember, it is the seriousness of the allegation, not if the allegation is true!
Makes me wonder what information the MSM withheld about Obama before the 2008 election.
Never trust a woman who cheats.
What does she stand to gain?
Well I can't imagine what new stuff we could hear about Newt. Well Newt did trash Paul Ryan's budget plan, you don't think Marianne Gingrich is going to bring up that, do you?
Then again, Newt does have a secret twin. the photographic proof is frankly overwhelming! Maybe that is it.
Nick it sounds like YOUR ex wife could do an interview too from your comments. So a spouse's comments fall into the category of disgruntled employee?
Don't think it will play that way in Peoria!
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Is this payback for not being in on the famous spending spree at Tiffany's? Only her and Newt know. (for now)
Well..SORRY!! You don't GET to evaluate Newt's level of sleaze before you cast your vote…although I agree with you. As a woman they probably believe you are just too "emotional" to make a good decision…..you can bet Gingrich was burning up the phone lines to the network all day trying to get an advanced copy of the interview!
Guess you are down to just trying to GUESS how sleazy he is?
This story is not designed for you, a sensible, thinking and intelligent adult who can wade through the hype. It is designed for the "Jersey Shore" masses. "Look at what we MAY tell you!". Getting the pundits guessing is worth more than knowing.
Yeah…how did that Ostrich mentality work for you in the past?
PAYBACK is a MOMMA!
15 minutes of fame and maybe a book deal.
revenge!
This is another case of he said she said from a jaded ex wife and it is completely irrelevant to the campaign, more of the same Gloria Allred victimhood politics…
I hope the Romney people are proud of this little lefty inspired propaganda charade, it will backfire big time.
Hey! You beat me to it. He** hath no fury like a woman scorned.
"So long, Marianne
It's time that we began
To laugh and cry and
Cry and laugh about it all again"
Newt brought all this on himself with his unabated appetites. He can blame no one other than himself and, if the voters want to let him off the hook, then that is their prerogative too.
Bashing this woman for giving an interview to let the public know HER side of things and HER experiences with Gingrich is her right too! If you don't LIKE it then don't WATCH!
Divorces are ugly – sour grapes. We know Gingrich’s marriage history. I’m slightly more concerned about the fate of the nation. I wonder if Romney threw her a few bucks. If we’re comparing wives I’ve always liked Marianne. She's probably upset she won't be first lady. Newt is still the best choice, unless she knows something really insane. You have to wonder if this is smoke and mirrors from ABC to make it look like a bigger story.
Ah, the dunce that is Dana Loesch. No, bimbo, we won't be hearing about Vera what's-her-name in the legitimate press. Maybe you should ask the National Enquirer what happened to that non-story. And as for Matt Drudge? The last I knew, John Nolte, the world is turning just fine, despite a yellow journalist in a bad fedora.
She won't be First Lady? Huh. That's ironic. Her ex-husband will never be president, either. See? It is a great country after all!
I've always been fascinated by the propensity of women to have affairs with married men and then expect them to be faithful. Seems kind of silly and illogical.
how about Larry Sinclair, then?
His other, uh, affair? Or Reggie Love?
Just asking…
Those are some reasons. But what about, to protect herself? Maybe there is something to the story about the buried FBI investigation and the arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian.
Drudge should've sat on it as soon as he learned that ABC did.
What interest does this serve?
I didn’t know gnats could type. You’ll never feel important.
I am totally NOT up on this at all. Will have to investigate further….
Tote that bale Dana! Start stacking those sandbags high! Newt needs your help and you're giving it to him! Nice!
Man, you are out there on the fringe, eh?
I think she already has, Porch! On The View. So that tells you how much credence should be given.
Yes, a former spouse could be considered a disgruntled employee in the majority of cases. "A woman scorned" didn't just materialize out of thin air (sorry ladies, men are just as bad!)
Just as a current spouse may say good things about the significant other in a public setting that has no bearing on the truth, the former oftimes does the same with un-truths without the constraint of having to go home with the former significant other.
Frankly, I don't think the good folk of Peoria will be fooled either. Relationship problems are universal.
And what do you mean, "from my comments" anyway?
Deep. Fuc#ing deep, Junior.
And then of course there's reality. Funny how ABC, part of Obama's morning media briefing team, happens to leak that there's a potentially scandalous rumor, (but of course, they won't say what it is, so let your imagination run wild) about the only Republican who may derail the "Romney Juggernaut." ABC is in cahoots with the Obama administration. They have been saying for months that Romney is the only Republican who can beat Obama. Now why would the lefty media and the Democrat administration say such a thing? C'mon now. Think about it. Romney, with his personally touted 15% tax rate, is the poster boy for the rich, white, corporate raiding, inherited income, out of touch, country club Republican, who belongs to the 1% that is sucking the fiscal blood out of the rest of the 99% of American victims. Romney is the gift that keeps on giving. Michael Moore or Oliver Stone couldn't create a better straw man target than Willard "Mitt" Romney. So gee, ain't it surprising the ABC conveniently has some undisclosed, scandalous story about the "anti-Mitt" Gingrich. Ray Charles could see this coming.
As for Sinclair, from Politico in 2010:
Sinclair, who is still alive, is 46, stands 5'7", and weights 168 pounds, according to arrest records. Colorado records list him with 13 aliases, including "Larye Vizcarra Avila" and "Mohammed Gahanan." His story has generally been ignored by the mainstream media, because he's been unable to substantiate his allegations. He has come to public attention recently, however, because his planned appearance at the National Press Club drew complaints from a wide array of prominent liberal bloggers, led by Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher. Their petition to prevent Sinclair from renting space at the club – which bloggers feared would lend him credibility – drew more than 11,000 signatures.
Press Club President Sylvia Smith said Sinclair had rented space at the club, which doesn't censor speakers.
"I'm not aware that we've ever turned anybody away for content," she said, adding that Sinclair's allegations "don't seem very credible."
Politico isn't reprinting Sinclair's allegations because they are unsubstantiated.
This February, the website Whitehouse.com reportedly offered Sinclair $100,000 if he could pass a polygraph test verifying his claims. He took them up on it, and the site said in a press release that the polygraph organizers said his results "indicated deception." Sinclair then suggested the polygraph's sponsors had been bribed to skew the results against him, an allegation his lawyer, Sibley, said he would expand on at his press conference.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11164.h...
(Jeezus you are an idiot…)
The public's right to know. Ever heard of it?
Ummm, lemme see.
It got us Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln…. Should I go on?
Mind you, it got us Wilson and FDR too.
It's a double edged sword, I guess but, I get NEs point.
I know all about his level of personal sleaze. After all, I am reduced to the point of having to give him credit for actually marrying each of his serial mistresses, lol. But I want to know if there is more "there" there. This woman obviously has an axe to grind (although I think his treatment of her was just karma, she was, after all, the other woman before she was his wife) but having a grudge does not preclude also having a point. If she has something else on him, I want to know what it is before Saturday, and hopefully he will have time to respond to the accusations. And that should have read "ethical" not "unethical" in the above post. I guess you can't edit a comment after someone replies to it.
Don't quit your day job—if you have one. There are already plenty of conspiracy-minded right-wing crackpots on Fox News.
Money mostly but, sometimes, out of pure evil spite, Charm.
Please don't let it be cross dressing. That would really, really hurt.
If one were to do such a thing it should be done with class.
Ahhh, that's a good pickup, PLW.
When Newt opened an account at Tiffanys was Marianne on the arm, or did it come after?
That kind of thing would seriously piss off a former!
I wonder if dear old Gloria is somewhere in the background, Missy? It wouldn't surprise me one bit!
I'm going with the S and M, Quivive.
Ahhh, smoke and mirrors, that is.
…deeper than you could ever dream of being.
I wrote that under the premise that Calista was the recipient of his largesse at Tiffany's, and the 'scorned one' was left in his past thinking "WTH? you never spent that kinda cash on ME", but I could be mistaken.
I just don't see why anyone should have a "right to know" gossip.
Should also point out that I posed it as a question, and was claiming no knowledge of her motives for the interview.
"It’s not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge."
A trie and tested liberal journalistic tenet when it pertains to Republicans.
Funny how you guys flip the script when it's one of your own. Now all of a sudden hard evidence needed!
and POLITICO as your sound source to refute anything political and partisan? Please, they have been the house steno for Obama since he was inaugurated. What else would they say? Republicans are bad?
You prove idiocy is indeed a two way street.
I have a right to know what they are keeping secret. It is my responsibility as a voter to decide for myself if it is just gossip, or maliciousness, or truth. And Newt is the one who decided to run, knowing full well his past would come back to bite him. If this is just he said, she said, my man done me wrong crap, I don't care what she says. But, if there is something more material there, I want to know it. And I will most certainly keep in mind that the person telling me all this kept it secret herself until it suited her interests to come forward.
says the liberal tool.
Wife swap with the Pelosis?
Well, if Marianne is anything like my husband's ex-wife I can certainly sympathize with him. My husband was divorced for ten years before we ever met and she is still a thorn in the side. My husband's ex had an affair on him, but apparently it is still all his fault. Newt's wife was a mistress, and he left her for a mistress.. Nothing to see here move along.
I don't think that is the point. I think the unethical part is that they are doing it deliberately. It has nothing to do with you. Newt has had a few affairs and has admitted and apologized for them. That is basically it that we know about, but if you are so inclined just vote for another.
Yes, and the stories about his gay lovers? I have relatives in Chicago that swear it is true.
Oh come on.. she could have told HER story many months ago.
Here's the thing. Media outlets are in business (Key word) to make money. So, they hype stories to get more viewers.
Ive been married now for 13 years. Because I love my wife, she knows things about me that no one else knows. No one else should ever know, either, because it is private. It's none of your damn business. You have zero right to know about it. Now, if, God forbid it, we got a divorce sometime down the road and she decided to share those secrets with other people, it would still be none of their business.
You can play up the, "Well, it goes to his character" or some other nonsense all you like. The fact is, in the end, there isn't any proof for it, and is therefore gossip.
Unfortunately, people make a lot of decisions based on gossip. Sad, but true. I realize you think you're too smart to be influenced but such gossip and I have found that people who think they are too clever by half are the biggest suckers.
Yes, we the people do have a "right to know" and we also have a "right to privacy". A marriage ought to be sacrosanct and people ought to be comfortable sharing with their spouse things they wouldn't share with the rest of the world. None of us is perfect. Newt Gingrich is no exception to that rule.
I mean, what if she comes out and tells the world he liked to Donkey Punch her during sex? Did you have a "right to know" that?
I'm sure you'll think so. I respectfully disagree.
Maybe to show ABC that he is smarter than them.
Unless it is a democrat, and then nothing to see here move along.
This is exactly my point. I am a voter. I have the right to know information about the candidates before I cast my vote. But the MSM treats my vote as their personal chattel, telling me only what they want me to know-which is usually the equivalent of telling me bad things about conservatives and hiding bad things about liberals. This same media outlet has a tape of Obama toasting the spokesman for the PLO in 2008 that they refuse to release because it would make The One look bad. I am sick and tired of them treating my vote as if it were their plaything.
Just tells me ABC would prefer Romney. Seems simple.
Semper Fi
Do you have a right to know what Romney is hiding in his tax return?
Yep, the media and the rino board will character assassinate anyone to save Romney. It wasnt so long ago that Cain was destroyed. And guess what? No more news.
This speaks more to the character of Marianne than of Newt. I guess he discovered that she had no class.
What ex-wife hasn't dreamed of a situation like this…as a way to "get back" at her ex-husband?
And for the Democrats to use this in a political manner is outrageous.
Why can't people have amicable divorces any more?
She's read Alinsky — and perhaps everyone here should as well. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
What part of "If this is just he said, she said, my man done me wrong crap, I don't care what she says. But, if there is something more material there, I want to know it." did you not comprehend? I was very clear that things like "he liked to Donkey Punch her during sex" were not my concern. I wanted to know if there is something more substantial here, such as some type of criminal behavior. You are making the assumption that her accusations are only about their marital strife, I am not. That may be all of it, it may not. But either way, if they are sitting on a story and only telling me they have a story, that is a blatant attempt to influence my vote. I don't like it and said so. You sir, obviously have issues of your own that have nothing whatsoever to do with any comment I have made.
Yes, and I have a right to see the tax returns of the 20,000 people working on the Keystone pipeline too. Oh, wait….there aren't any. I think Romney should release his returns, but I also think the tax returns never to be filed by people who will never work on that pipeline are more important to America's future.
Bet he would look better than our current FLOTUS!
Until ABC interviews Larry Sinclair I could care less about this interview.
We can agree if you've changed from, "I want to know it." to the silly, "I have a right to know it."
Yes, I know you want to know about the gossip of his marriage. I'm sure lot's of people do. But they don't have a right to know it.
If it were more than gossip, like criminal activity, then she should report it to the police, not to the news media.
Obviously we all have a right to know if our Presidential candidates have committed criminal acts.
Hiding your desire to hear gossip behind the excuse of, "Maybe there is criminal behavior we don't know about!" is just silly. You and I both know she is going to dish gossip and that's it.
And neither of us have a right to know that. But one of us surely wants to know.
And just like Gingrich issues, if I had any, they would be none of your business. Next you'll be calling me a racist because you certainly don't want to be known as a gossip. Must distract from that somehow.
Drudge is reporting that Drudge is gay…..
"Does this mean we’ll also start hearing about Vera Baker from broadcast media?"
If she wants to do a interview, it is certainly her choice….just like it is Marianne Gingrich's. It's either B.S., or it's not.
Hold on a sec. We're saying since we know Newt screwed around a few times, we shouldn't take a second to listen to whatever insight the mistress of Newt Gingrich might have to offer on someone who wants to be leader of the free world? Typical partisan BS.
the site administrator is having double standard-itis.
There is a ton of info on The One and his, uh, 'peccadilloes' if one wants to dig a bit…
RTFP. The "I have a right to know it" was in my very first post – referring to what the ex-Mrs. Gingrich had to say. The " I want to know" was referring to the ethics of keeping the interview from the viewers. I think anyone who has read both your posts and mine can decide the truth in each of them for themselves.
A little hyperbole never hurts nothin'. 'Non existent tax returns' is an inept deflection of a real answer. What is it Romney does not want us to know?
I don't like newt due to his statism and general emotional brittleness, but I will not be influenced by the bitter recriminations of an ex. I am voting for president, not husband of the year.
Also, the scripted public network handwringing looks calculated to make a nothing story seem like a big deal–and arrogate themselves to the notion that objective journalism has any place at all in their decision making. Also, we all know that tawdry hit-pieces are most effective just before voting, before people have time to think it over.
The sheeple are so easily manipulated.
PS. for what its worth, both carter and obama are faithful to their wives as far as we know–so, how good of a metric is it?
I guess I would have to see if I like his dresses before I passed judgement. Definitely needs slimming patterns.
I don't know…..which is why I said I think he should release them. Seriously, do people just reply to posts they don't even read first?
Dummy, it was the Reids, ya know from Nevada.
He just stole the initiative. Now they can't control when they release it for maximum electoral impact.
In any case, drudge exists solely because he ran stories the networks were sitting on.
Americans are notorious for not learning from history. Anyway, skank does as skank is–the rest is rationalizing.
No shocker here … Newt's got baggage. The only question is how bad it's going to be. I have no love for Gingrich, but I'm surprised at Drudge's willingness to play a role in the sandbagging of a Republican candidate by ABC.
i have read it, and wouldn't have to be pressed to believe it. I just wish that was the worse thing I had to fear about Obama was that he was a closet dandy. Sadly that's reason number 1,897,298,365,980.245,901 on the list of things I find repulsive and scary about him!
Ok your right. however, right now we are trying to determine who is the right candidate to face Obama. Everyone in the republican party, to my knowledge is in favor of the pipeline. So what is your purpose to draw a distinction where there is none?
That explains your trolling…
I hear ya!
I wasn't trying to draw distinctions between our candidates but between how fixated the media is on a single rich man's tax returns and their total lack of interest in all the average men's tax returns that could have been filed if this pipeline had gone through.
Let me guess…Newt's ex old lady will drop her bomb and then be the next Democrat candidate for Senator in New York.
Oh, Junior. You are as deep as a raindrop, douc#ebag.
Oh, of course! Fox News didn't report it so it can't be true!
Idiot.
What would we find if we dug into Marianne's motivation to dump on Newt. I wouldn't be surprised to find that she's being paid very well by someone in Obama's establishment media or an Obama PAC. The Dems fear Newt's sharp tongue and know their man-child won't get a bloody nose in a debate with Newt, but would indeed be knocked out.
You must be logged in to post a comment.