In response to pointed questioning from Univision host Jorge Ramos in a forum yesterday, Newt Gingrich denied that he had been a hypocrite for criticizing President Clinton’s actions related to the Monica Lewinsky affair, saying that he had been criticizing Clinton for lying under oath, not for having the affair. Elaborating on the differences between himself and Clinton, Gingrich said, per ABC, “The fact is, I have been through two divorces. I have been deposed both times under oath and both times I have told the truth in the deposition because I know – I am not a lawyer – so I know it is a felony. Bill Clinton, who is a lawyer, a Yale law school graduate, he knew he was lying under oath, he knew it was perjury, he knew it was a felony and in fact, he lost his license to practice law in Arkansas as part of the deal –”
But according to a report last month from the Daily Beast (hat tip: Drudge), Gingrich never gave a deposition. From the report:
Gingrich has long justified his votes in favor of all four of the impeachment counts against Clinton on the basis of the president’s alleged perjury. But a Daily Beast probe of both divorces can find no evidence that he was ever deposed. …
Alan Lee, the Carroll County clerk of the court, who released the 1980–81 records of Gingrich’s Georgia divorce from Jackie Battley last week, told The Daily Beast: “The fact that there was no deposition in the papers indicates to me that it never occurred.” Douglas Vassy, the attorney for Battley who was supposed to depose Gingrich, says, “There was no deposition.”
John Mayoue, the lawyer for Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne Gingrich, told us: “Simply put, he was never deposed.”
The fact that a deposition was not a part of the court file is not dispositive of anything. Most depositions taken are never filed with the court, unless they are attached as an exhibit to a memorandum of law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis ex-wives' attorneys confirms that Gingrich was never deposed. The absence of the record isn't dispositive by itself, but it supports the testimony of the attorneys, which leaves pretty much zero doubt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe lawyer who would have deposed Gingrich said he never did. Does that count as proof the deposition never happened?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure it does. As for the other post, in my jurisdiction, depositions are not filed -- not even in divorce proceedings. But other jurisdictions may have different rules.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDepositions in divorce cases are routinely filed. I don't know about other areas of law, but we're not talking about those other areas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt depends on what your definition of "depose" is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePossibly. Possibly not.
I recall going to the county courthouse, about ten years ago, to look at the record for a particular civil case that had been settled out of court. The clerk gave me the entire record that was on file, several thick folders with briefs and depositions.
However, it was clear that the file did NOT contain all of the depositions, and also did not contain the entirety of several deposiions that were there in part. Apparently, the atorneys only filed (or the clerk only kept) those materials that were central to supporting or refuting the various contested legal assertions made in the briefs and arguments. Whether that is standard practice, I do not know.
If that is standard practice in the jurisdiction where the divorce took place, then it is possible that Newt was deposed, but had nothing to say that wasn't stipulated. If so, then the clerk might not have retained the deposition, for a matter that was settled without trial or potential appeal.
Just guessing. If Newt was actually deposed, then he could name his attorney at the time (probably on public record), and permit the attorney to answer whether or not Newt was deposed, yes or no.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's the big deal? It's not like the *interviews* were under oath!
/
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are documents that are part of divorce cases that never get filed with the court. I know this firsthand. However, in my case I was indeed brought before a judge and asked several questions by him--as was me ex--before he gaveled the divorce final. Whether or not that's what lawyers call being deposed, I don't think us non-lawyers consider it a material difference.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAdditionally, a sworn affidavit may use the terms "deponent" and "deposes".
And this nit-pickery is irrelevant to the real issues (which should be recognized by real "conservatives") - Clinton's perjury, abuse of power, abuse of office, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Anyway, even if Gingrich misremembered something from 30 years ago that's hardly a scandal.
The real story here is that the leftist media, which has always stubbornly denied that Clinton's sexual harrassment case and perjury had anything to do with his impeachment and claims in reality it was all about sex, is again up to their old tricks. They're determined to rewrite the history of the impeachment to where Clinton was impeached for having an affair with Lewinsky, whereas he was impeached for perjuring himself regarding Lewinsky during the course of being sued for harrassing Jones.
If Republicans had wanted to try to go after Clinton for having an affair, they could have kicked off 1993 using the Gennifer Flowers affair. But Flowers and the Republicans' ignoring her is inconvenient to the leftist narrative so they write her out of Clinton's past.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePatrick, put down that cup of Kool-Aid. Newt's lawyer has stated on the record that Newt was not deposed. Your idol lied. To you, to everyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Anyway, even if Gingrich misremembered something from 30 years ago that's hardly a scandal."
While you're right that this is a thinly-veiled attempt to rewrite Clinton's history, the comments that Gingrich made this week are identical to the comments he made 13-years ago - when Clinton was being impeached and when Newt was getting divorced. These are contemporaneous comments, and they're not comments on something that happened 30-years ago.
In fact, the Daily Beast article cites a NT Times interview from 2000 where Gingrich uses the same exact line. The sad part is Gingrich really didn't need to embellish the story. He could have easily drawn the same distinction without stretching the truth. When anyone gets divorced (presuming the divorce is contested, which I believe both were), both respondents have to file a number of decelerations with the Court, under penalty of perjury. It's a virtual certainty that Gingrich did as well. He could have cited those decelerations, and been done with it. This is a bit of sloppy, unforced error.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFair distinction. Nevertheless I think it's possible he honestly may have thought what he gave (his declarations) was a deposition. As he points out, he's not a lawyer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTalk about an apologist.
Everything Newt does is calculated. From attacking Jon King and getting cozy with him after the debate to something as grand as his House takeover.
I will give Newton one thing and that is he is very sharp. A guy able to retain the amount of information he can and does won't just happen to forget something like this. Keep apologizing though, and hold the rope!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNonsense. You know he's lying through his teeth. You're playing stupid, which you seem to do pretty well, but even a fairly stupid person knows that Gingrich railed on and on and on about being deposed under oath. Some casual conversation with someone doesn't count, and a turnip knows that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIts nice to blame the media for EVERYTHING, but the fact is that all of this anti-Newt stuff is coming from other Republicans who know him and can't stand him and don't trust him. Sometimes the "media" is not to blame, even though its a convenient canard that fits well into the Republicans as victims scenario.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePatrick -- nice quote, I guess, but doesn't seem to apply here. In a court case, absence of a document is indeed evidence that the document is absent. Unlikely the real world, the records of a legal case are a closed system.
Your comment is as tendentious as someone saying, "There is no relationship with Ms. Lewinsky", and later saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is actually not absolutely true. A deposition is part of discovery. And at least in NY divorce cases (Georgia may be different), a copy of the deposition would not be filed with the court unless filing was necessary for some other reason (it was introduced at a later trial, there was a motion made that relied on testimony given at the deposition, etc.). If the parties agree to a deposition but later settle their case without a trial the deposition may never end up in the court's file.
So as to discovery items, absnece of the document is indeed not necessarily an indication that the document doesn't exist. The documents could have been produced to the other party but never used in later phases, or the case could have settled before they were needed, or several other reasons the document would never be filed with the court.
However, I would expect that the attorney's files would contain a copy if a transcript was ever ordered (which it would be if there had been a deposition). Then again, these are old records, and the lawyers involved may not even have ready access to them as a basis for commenting (most lawyers store older files in offsite facilities where retrieval can take at least several days) - so they could be working from memory just like Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have been thoroughly amused by Professor Gasbag for a long time now, and was utterly delighted when he waddled into the race, but I had no idea he would be this entertaining. Some people running for President, it's a gaffe a week. Really bad, maybe daily. But the Professor just keeps 'em coming. What are we up to now, hourly?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse