My Prediction: The "Bombshell" Interview

[Tyler_Durden]

ABC News knew what it was doing when it set up the interview with Marianne Gingrich. They knew there would be dirt. However, the interview lasted 2hrs!! I don't think they anticipated how much she would spill!

We know about the Arms Deal scandal and the called off FBI Sting. What we DON'T know is any of the inside information!! And since it's well past the Statute of Limitations, she doesn't have to worry about legal repercussions.

Per Drudge:
"Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview."

I predict that Marianne went balls to the walls, wheels off in the interview regarding the level of corruption regarding Newt. She was there for 18yrs and she's bitter. She knows the dirt and during the 2hr interview she laid it ALL out.

The Bombshell has more to do with his level of corruption than it does the cheating. That's my prediction.

http://www.dcbureau.org/201112136815/national-security-news-service/newt-gingrich-marianne-and-the-arms-dealera-buried-fbi-investigation.html

[cindy25]

Gingrich is an unusually active twitter search term right now

[Tyler_Durden]

Gingrich is an unusually active twitter search term right now

He's holding a press conference today to try to get in front of this issue. This is going to get played up today. I hope it's HUGE!!!

[dfalken]

ABC News knew what it was doing when it set up the interview with Marianne Gingrich. They knew there would be dirt. However, the interview lasted 2hrs!! I don't think they anticipated how much she would spill!

We know about the Arms Deal scandal and the called off FBI Sting. What we DON'T know is any of the inside information!! And since it's well past the Statute of Limitations, she doesn't have to worry about legal repercussions.

Per Drudge:
"Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview."

I predict that Marianne went balls to the walls, wheels off in the interview regarding the level of corruption regarding Newt. She was there for 18yrs and she's bitter. She knows the dirt and during the 2hr interview she laid it ALL out.

The Bombshell has more to do with his level of corruption than it does the cheating. That's my prediction.

http://www.dcbureau.org/201112136815/national-security-news-service/newt-gingrich-marianne-and-the-arms-dealera-buried-fbi-investigation.html


Totally agree with you, and I do think this will end his career (finally!). She wrote a book during their divorce and threatened to release it. Newt's lawyers told Newt to give her everything she wanted in order to keep the book unpublished or that he would never work another day in his life. I think she is spilling the beans. If the statute of limitations was not up Newt would probably be going to prison. Now the only question that remains is whether criminal activity is enough to dissuade bible thumping, Muslim-blood thirsting, American "patriots" from voting for Newt....as if there wasn't enough on him already to declare him a complete psycopath.

[Dsylexic]

Will ABC air it before friday?

[Tyler_Durden]

Will ABC air it before friday?

Tonight on Nightline, after the debate....I would expect Newt to bring it up during the debate. He's cunning like that...

[Tyler_Durden]

Will ABC air it before friday?

Tonight on Nightline, after the debate....I would expect Newt to bring it up during the debate. He's cunning like that...

[SaulPaulinsky]

I wish it was going to be after the debate. Not looking forward to another flood of idiots voting for Santorum.

[UtahApocalypse]

I hope this turns out to be something New, and as big as its being made out to be. One very intriguing twist is Newts daughter (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/01/18/abc-news-air-interview-gingrichs-ex-wife) have even issued statements to ABC not release the information as its "a private family issue" this makes me think that it is not about the arms deal.

[dfalken]

They are airing snippets of it during the day today, the full interview on nightline. If the snippets are good, Newt might just decide to not attend the debate and drop out, we'll see. There is definitely some severely damaging material in this interview from what we know of Newt's divorce lawyers recommending he'd give her anything to keep her quiet and from what we know of the ABC people fighting about whether to release it or not.

[Tyler_Durden]

I hope this turns out to be something New, and as big as its being made out to be. One very intriguing twist is Newts daughter (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/01/18/abc-news-air-interview-gingrichs-ex-wife) have even issued statements to ABC not release the information as its "a private family issue" this makes me think that it is not about the arms deal.

But would the Gingrich's know the topic of discussion during the interview? I anticipate that Gingrich will try to spin it like she's a bitter woman scorned. They're trying to get in front of this thing....look for Gingrichs Press Conference today and how he tries to proactively squash it.

[Dsylexic]

the timing of this is crucial.it should be just enough to kill newt while not allowing frothy to surge.romney is the guaranteed winner

[Tod]

Hopefully she won't be painted with the "bitter ex" line too badly.

[kathy88]

Totally agree with you, and I do think this will end his career (finally!). She wrote a book during their divorce and threatened to release it. Newt's lawyers told Newt to give her everything she wanted in order to keep the book unpublished or that he would never work another day in his life. I think she is spilling the beans. If the statute of limitations was not up Newt would probably be going to prison. Now the only question that remains is whether criminal activity is enough to dissuade bible thumping, Muslim-blood thirsting, American "patriots" from voting for Newt....as if there wasn't enough on him already to declare him a complete psycopath.

After the audience reaction to him at the last debate, I'm sure they will cry foul and continue backing him.

[RDM]

Tonight on Nightline, after the debate....I would expect Newt to bring it up during the debate. He's cunning like that...

Yeah, I can just hear him now....in his words:

My ex-wife is just fundamentally wrong. There are no basis for her inaccurate timeline of the events.

[ohgodno]

As much as I loathe Grinch - he's doing the right thing here by getting out in front of this. HE sets the narrative before the press has a chance to—this is what should have happened with the newsletters.

Now it has a strong possibility of not working depending on how dirty the dirt is.

[mwkaufman]

"Look, these are facts. She's just fundamentally not pretty enough to be the First Lady. And consequently, our marriage was never valid."

[ohgodno]

"Look, these are facts. She's just fundamentally not pretty enough to be the First Lady."

SC Audience: **chants** "KILL HER!!! KILL HER!!! KILL HER!!!"

[RDM]

As much as I loathe Grinch - he's doing the right thing here by getting out in front of this. HE sets the narrative before the press has a chance to—this is what should have happened with the newsletters.

Now it has a strong possibility of not working depending on how dirty the dirt is.

This is why ABC "conveniently" just so happened to have a "civil war" amongst themselves on when to air the interview.

[kathy88]

SC Audience: **chants** "KILL HER!!! KILL HER!!! KILL HER!!!"


HAHAHAHAH launched coffee at the laptop!

[nayjevin]

As much as I loathe Grinch - he's doing the right thing here by getting out in front of this. HE sets the narrative before the press has a chance to—this is what should have happened with the newsletters.

I disagree, it may be the right move for Newt, he's trying to spin the truth. But it's not the right move for Ron Paul, when the accusations truly are baseless.

[J_White]

My bitter wife has a long history of making inaccurate accusations !! he will go into one of his long wordy sentences !!
but the thing is it might make him the victim and people may still stick to him.
Cain didnt start plummeting early, it took time.
but anyway anything that takes wind off his sails is good for me.
but i wish people looked more into real issues than just following the media circus !

[UtahApocalypse]

If this turns out to be just rehashed stories that are already out then newt will end up winning over it and easily portray the "bitter ex-wife" lines. the ONLY way this will be a bombshell "that can end his campaign in one interview" is if its new, and very dramatic and bad.

[Tyler_Durden]

but the thing is it might make him the victim and people may still stick to him.
Cain didnt start plummeting early, it took time.
but anyway anything that takes wind off his sails is good for me.

If it doesn't deep-six him in SC, hopefully it stops his momentum in FL and beyond.

[No Free Beer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hHDxlm66dE

[Liberty74]

Will ABC air it before friday?

Airing Thursday night but some of the transcript will be out today. Oh My!

[ohgodno]

I disagree, it may be the right move for Newt, he's trying to spin the truth. But it's not the right move for Ron Paul, when the accusations truly are baseless.

By not facing them head-on the campaign let the media run with them - planting the idea that Dr. Paul wrote them. And as we've seen the story STILL hasn't gone away. If he had come out in a Press Conference with a strong statement, tell them something they haven't heard before (because that's all they wanted to hear) and settled it once and for all, then the media couldn't have run 9,001 stories full of fabricated "facts."

Spinning the truth would have been beneficial for Dr. Paul, because the truth—that he didn't write them—was spun into a guilt by association play.

[Muwahid]

Yeah, I can just hear him now....in his words:

My ex-wife is just fundamentally wrong. There are no basis for her inaccurate timeline of the events.

hahahah

[Dutch]

Hell hath no fury...

[mport1]

I hope it is something that could get him locked up. That man is way too dangerous to be roaming the streets.

[walt]

Has anyone considered the following?

The "handlers of the media" appear to be encouraged behind the scenes by the powers that be to ingore and or demonize Ron Paul.

However, their marching orders don't disallow them from doing hard hitting journalism to tear the other candidates down. They know there is little if anything to attack Paul about. So, in theory, if there were some converting closet Ron Paul fans in the media who want to cross over to the other side without outrightly risking their jobs, one way to do it would be hard hitting reporting on Romney, the Grinch, Frothy, etc. The past two weeks, these hard hitting stories are coming out in a primary at a pace I've never seen before. It makes me wonder - why now?

Could it possibly be that we've entered a new phase where certain media who by repeated exposure to Ron has started to become converted "underground" has figured out that the only way Ron Paul could win is if they destroyed every other candidate?

As I awake this morning, I find myself confronted by this suddenly worthy question. What are your thoughts?

[Slist]

You know what moderators would ask him if he was Ron Paul, right?

"As you have been married a few times, assuming you would become president, who would be your first lady?"

[Badger Paul]

"The Bombshell has more to do with his level of corruption than it does the cheating. That's my prediction."

It has to be for it to have any kind of impact this late.

[nayjevin]

By not facing them head-on the campaign let the media run with them - planting the idea that Dr. Paul wrote them.

Nah, media would run with it no matter what. The campaign doesn't have power over media. Newt exagerrates his own power over media, leading to this 'fight them over there before they fight us over here' mentality.

The issue did blow over, because there's no substance. Now it's only mentioned in comment sections and on forums, and with the occasional subtle remark, hoping a few non-thinking outliers will be snagged with the misperception. No media event, press release, or other action by the Ron Paul campaign would have had power to stop that (they wouldn't cover it anyway.)

[ohgodno]

… Now it's only mentioned in comment sections and on forums, and with the occasional subtle remark, hoping a few non-thinking outliers will be snagged with the misperception. No media event, press release, or other action by the Ron Paul campaign would have had power to stop that (they wouldn't cover it anyway.)

Only comments sections…just like this story I read on my way to work in the NY Daily News this morning. Where there is this sentence that STILL implies to someone that doesn't know the backstory that Ron Paul wrote them: "Ron Paul’s newsletters were mean and kooky in warning of an impending uprising from “the blacks”?"

Source: hxxp://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/race-republicans-rest-article-1.1008302

Many, many, many people have this misperception. It's one that I hate having to explain over and over again when speaking about Dr. Paul. By the time you set the record straight there is no interest in discussing the issues—and in that respect the media have won that point.

And I'm not saying you control the media - you can however, influence (even slightly) how they frame a story. They'll NEVER be a friend to liberty, but we can't deny their influence and I think have to do everything we can to attempt control over the messages they brainwash people with.

[nayjevin]

Obviously mentions still exist. I just believe they would exist no matter what the campaign did. I broke that link, and honestly don't see why it's so important to you to carry on with this here, it's not really on topic to the thread. We've had plenty of second guessing the campaign strategy, and plenty of discussion on the subject IMO.