Search this site for: search engine by Netcreations

by David J. Gonzo

Tuesday, Sept. 14, 1999--NEW YORK--Those hoping for a major and ugly dust-up on Thursday, when an all-too-public divorce hearing involving has-been House Uberspeaker Newt Gingrich was to take place, felt a strong sense of letdown when, late last night, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that

"Newt Gingrich and Marianne Gingrich agreed Monday to keep their divorce out of a public arena -- for now.

"The Gingriches have reached a confidential agreement on how to divide their income and assets while their legal separation proceeds, avoiding an open and potentially contentious hearing this week."

But there are three things worth keeping in mind.  First, Marianne's lawyer, John Mayoue of the firm Warner, Mayoue & Bates, is reputed to be one of the savviest attorneys in Atlanta.  Second, no public figure, celebrity, business honcho or other big-money type wants all of their dirty laundry aired in public.  And third, this case was showing signs of becoming just that.

In fact, some suspect far more going on behind the scenes than the ALC story and the spin from Newt's side would lead you to believe--and the press has not reported an explosive element of the Newt divorce story, one that hints that Newt's involvement with Callista Bisek is the least of his worries.

Flashback: in January, both The Irish Times and American Politics Journal reported on allegations that Gingrich had procured call girls during his tenure in the House of Representatives.

An attempt to obtain paperwork from these alleged transactions--including credit card charge slips--had been made late last year by researchers working for L.F.P. Inc., the publishing company headed by Larry Flynt, who offered a bounty for information on illegal or hypocritical conduct by Federal officials in a Washington Post ad last October.  Gingrich abruptly announced his resignation as House Speaker and Congressman from Georgia's Sixth District as L.F.P. was holding talks with at least one party concerning the purported documents.

Cut to present: American Politics Journal has learned that attorneys for Marianne Gingrich were alerted to these allegations a few weeks ago.

Remember--if these charges were to prove true, they would hold the potential of serious legal consequences for Gingrich.  A source tells American Politics Journal that "there's been a lot of talk on the Hill about this.  Word is that Newt might have been buying 'rent-a-chicks' for elected colleagues and even lobbyists.  That could land more than a few big names in Club Fed, including the Big Kahuna himself."

And if in fact Marianne Gingrich's attorneys were investigating the "Poontang Express" rumors--or other illegal activity that related in any way to her divorce case--it is not surprise that Newt would want to settle.

...that is, after making it look like he'd embarrassed Marianne into an agreement.

Tuesday, Sept. 14, 1999

From: J.M. Prince
Re: Ken Starr

Last week I sent many of Salon's staff a copy of an Atlanta Journal Constitution front page, above-the-fold story from their Sept. 9th edition.  It concerned the fact that Kenneth Starr and his infamous Chicago law firm, Kirkland and Ellis, were cited for "obstructing justice and defrauding the court" in Georgia with respect to the infamous GM exploding gas tank case that had been in litigation for years.

In light of the fact that Starr and Co. have been repeatedly cited for what amounts to lying and deceiving the courts of several jurisdictions (see the Mother Jones story in their February 1998 edition), don't you think this might be a matter that your readers would want to consider in relation to today's story--involving an Appeals Court ruling by Judge Laurence Silberman(!) et al?

Mr. Starr seems to be VERY concerned about his public reputation in Washington regarding his citation of contempt of court for his massive and illegal leaking operation of several years' duration in his investigations into President Clinton.

Isn't this also a 'character' question?

Mr. Starr has been found to be perfectly willing to lie and to obstruct numerous state courts as a corporate lawyer, and has been cited for doing this repeatedly.

Perhaps your readers might want this information to better judge whether or not Starr might be similarly inclined to lie to a Federal magistrate and/or the Justice Dept. as well!

Perhaps the fact that Starr & Co.'s lies were about the very real incineration of HUNDREDS of people, probably unnecessarily at the hands of a highly negligent but very rich multinational corporation doesn't count for much in Washington or where the power elites meet to gather over champagne lunches.

Down here in Georgia, where we can see the victims of these corporate policies, it matters.  It mattered to the jury that awarded the victims of this widely known design flaw a record amount in punitive damages.

Which is the higher moral value here?
A.)The continuing decade long cover-up of the hundreds of smoking charred bodies of the men, women and children wrongfully incinerated alive due to the deliberate negligence of a corporations' bottom line, or B.) Zealously and probably illegally prosecuting the twice duly elected head of state of the world's only remaining superpower over 'lying' about legal and consensual 'sex', that amounted to only 9-11 instances of not very successful exercises at oral gratification?

That, in a nutshell, is Kenny's world view and his moral universe.

In short, why should a corporate shill like Ken Starr be allowed to so easily hide his lying and his ignominy from the scrutiny of the world?  After all, he has so plainly made it a point of personal and professional honor to expose all others he encountered in his operations to date!

I love Pundit Pap and so do my kids! Something you might want to keep in mind when writing your summary on Monday mornings (or whenever): we get up early on Sundays just to watch the gasbags.

Why?

To mock them.

There is no other reason.  There is that and nothing more.  We have long given up on hearing real issues discussed so all we do is mock these folk. Such arrogance on their part!

Anyway, I believe that you do a profound service in this and I urge you to continually remind these idiots how little influence they have and how many people watch them only to make fun of them.

I think they should know.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!