Court Papers Reportedly Contradict Gingrich On First Divorce

One of the most difficult problems faced by Newt Gingrich in appealing to religious voters is his record of adultery and three marriages. His campaign insists that it was his first wife, Jackie, not Gingrich, who wanted the first divorce. However, recently released papers contradict that claim and indicate it was Newt Gingrich who wanted the divorce.

The campaign previously insisted that “it was (Jackie Gingrich) that requested the divorce, not Newt.”

That first divorce was particularly because Jackie was reportedly dying of cancer and rumors suggested that Newt actually served the divorce papers the day after her cancer surgery — Gingrich denies the claims as does their daughter.

CNN was told the divorce papers were sealed but it later found the documents.
Friends of both Gingrich and his first wife contradicted Gingrich’s claims about who wanted the divorce.

The papers show that Newt Gingrich filed a divorce complaint on July 14, 1980, in Carroll County, saying that “the marriage of the parties is irretrievably (sic) broken.” Even more interesting is that Jackie filed opposing the filing — a curious response if she wanted the divorce or, as the campaign claimed today, she asked him to file the papers. She added that “[a]lthough defendant does not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken, defendant has been hopeful that an arrangement for temporary support of defendant and the two minor daughters of the parties could be mutually agreed upon without the intervention of this court . . . All efforts to date have been unsuccessful.”
Jackie Gingrich has never spoken to the media on the allegations. However, in 1985, she stated”He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise.”

The bigger concern for evangelical voters is that Gingrich was already in a relationship with a 28-year-old congressional aide at the time. He later married the aide, Marianne Ginther Gingrich, and then divorced her 19 years later for another, and younger, congressional aide whom he married soon after his divorce. The third wife, Callista Bisek Gingrich, is now campaigning for him.

I have previously written how candidates like Gingrich who are running on faith should not complain when asked about their own commitment to faith. In this case, Gingrich clearly violated (repeatedly) an oath to God in a different ceremony. With the declining separation of church and state, such questions are likely to increase.

How relevant should that be to voters? Would it be equally relevant if he was not campaigning for religious voters?

Source: CNN

FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 30, 2011.

241 thoughts on “Court Papers Reportedly Contradict Gingrich On First Divorce”

  1. 1,

    You seem like a good case study. Are you still drinking as much tonight as last? Enjoy yourself…

  2. Why would any self respecting democrat happy with all of what Obama has accomplished in office…be concerned with any potential threat to the president…..It is kind of moronic….or is it ironic….that they care… Now the ones who are displeased…with Obama’s record….Could Cut, Paste and Post…It just seems that people still in the state of Buyers remorse are looking for alternatives….and when all of the other players spots are spotlighted….it help the decision for lots to not vote for any of them….including the one remorsed over…lol…

    1. AY You started drinking way to early. For the sake of the sane and innocent please stay off the roads tonight. Find a designated driver to get you home.

    1. Alas, the world has not gone completely mad… from the article to get people started:

      “Lately I’ve noticed an uptick online in the number of people trying to sway the left wing over into supporting Ron Paul. Some of this may be driven by Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald, who has been singing Paul’s praises as an anti-war, anti-imperialist libertarian hero for liberals. (As opposed to Greenwald’s portrayal of President Obama as a warmongering neo-fascist who didn’t really end the Iraq War, Bush deserves that credit thank-you-very-much.)

      Of course, there’s the little complication to that that Paul is neither “libertarian” nor “anti-war” in any way, having supported the Iraq War until it turned out bad, has previously supported attacking Iran, and supports the criminalization of abortion and homosexuality. But then, you could say that about most of the Republican candidates.”

  3. @1zb1: I am a far left liberal, I believe in social liberty for citizens, I believe in a strong public safety net, unemployment insurance, Social Security, I would nationalize healthcare in a heart beat, I would extend Medicare to everyone, I would make school free for life, even if you wanted to get seven PhDs. I would fund fundamental scientific research with the proviso that nothing discovered or invented as a result could be patented and everything would be disclosed for free to the public. I would spend about ten times as much money on infrastructure as we spend now; instead of letting the banks rip us off for $20 Trillion (latest known figure based on the audit of the Federal Reserve, insisted upon by Ron Paul, among others), I would have spent the $20T nationalizing the bankrupt banks and building infrastructure.

    BUT, and this is a critical distinction, I am a far left liberal with a cynical, analytical mind. I am a full-time hard-science research scientist. I do not vote blindly for politicians just because they tell me they are liberals. I voted for Obama because I read his biography and books and I believed them, and based on his biographical actions I believed he believed in what I believed in, and I believed that was reflected in his campaign promises. Hillary was lying about her background (duck and run for the car, remember? Among other lies), she and her campaign aides were openly looting and misusing funds, McCain was a lying philanderer and homophobe, and I thought Obama was the best choice.

    I was not wrong about Hillary and McCain proved himself even more of an asshole later. I was wrong about Obama’s motives and his character. I cannot, by nature or my profession, lie and insist I was right when I know I was wrong, and I cannot insist I know an alternative would be worse when there is no way to know it or project it with any confidence: My mistake with Obama is proof enough of that principle.

    What Obama has actually done has been a disaster for civil liberties, and a massive boon to the 1% over the 99%. There is a reason the wealthy are doing fine while the country slips into depression: Obama is firmly on the side of wealth and privilege, he has proven that by both his voluntary actions and his complete refusals to act.

    His rhetoric may sound populist, but he actually punishes the weak and rewards the elite. He holds harmless the torturers and war criminals at the top, while applying the full weight of the law to those without status or privilege. The soldiers that wrongly followed orders to torture prisoners are destroyed, while the elite that ordered them to do it are held harmless and given medals. He claims that those that leak evidence of criminality are our conscience, then (like Bradley Manning) subjects them to deprivations that the Geneva Convention defines as tortures, and with impunity, as a brutal warning to any future would-be heroes of conscience.

    The problem is, I am a far left liberal. Obama is demonstrably not. You, apparently, prefer to comfort yourself with fairy tales.

    1. Correction: the best you can say is that you WERE a far left liberal. You are now supporting a person who by every measure and his own claims is conservative libertarian (what ever that is). That would seem to make you in practice a CL now regardless of what you claim in the past.

      By your analysis (gifted as mike says it is) that would suggest during the Civil War you would have supported the South because Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus among other counter civil liberty actions….

      Personally, I think that you have been an RP supported (conservative libertarian) for a good amount of time but, that’s just my belief and is of no consequence to the current reality.

      No matter, as I said given your current support for RP and his position as a CL that makes you now a CL and not a FLL.

      Now, of course, if you believe that RP better represents your concept of what an FLL is even though I am reasonably certain if you Asked RP whether he is a FLL he would say he is not, then perhaps the discussion should be what actually is a FLL and how does one put that into practice in the context of the current political reality. For example, is it best to elect a president that is certain to his best to undermine many of the principles held by the FLL, appoint judges counter to most of those principles, and for the most part cooperate with a republican majority in congress, or better to elect a president, though not exactly to the liking of some on the FLL but will at least be an obstical to the right on many important issues.

      In my view (just my belief) no reasonably thoughtful person who actually believes in the FLL principles can seriousely consider of those 2 choices RP is the better choice, unless of course they are not really on the FLL, never really were, and this all a big misrepresentation or delusion.

      BTW: one way to perhaps resolve the issue about you having been a FLL is if you shared your voter registration with Mister Turly and perhaps an independent arbiter while maintaining your confidentiality.

  4. 1zb1,

    Unfortunately you get none of it. You’re simply full of yourself. As for the sarcasm part, it is often used as an excuse when someone realized that their comments were badly written. BTW, if you really want to get the President re-elected I would urge you to send money and stuff envelopes.
    The less you are heard on the subject, the better his chances.

    1. Oh yes, old wise one who is analytically gifted and gets it all. Do you ever actually “listen” to yourself and hear how silly it all is?

      (btw: I actually put my money, time, and actions where I put my mouth which I dare say may not be the case for everyone else here)

  5. Here is the latest set of observations by local attorney Craig Hardegree. He is the lawyer who discovered the Gingrich file had not been sealed; that it was still a public document.

    The money quote is Craig’s discovery that Newt was never deposed, because the divorces settled before Newt had to provide sworn testimony. What does that mean? It means that anything Newt says on the matter is suspect, because he has already demonstrated that he can be rather creative with the truth.

    Here is Mr. Hardegree’s account:

  6. I apologize that I am “N” key challenged because the one on my laptop skips. I hope all reading me will add “N’s” in reading my writing, where appropriate.

  7. 1zb1,

    Sadly you’re an ass or an “Opposites” troll. Boring and off base in either iteration. You got no game sonny, only ineffectual outrage or insults.

    1. Now I get how it works, Mike. Apparently I didn’t get the memo that I have to be here long enough before I use charachterizations. Until then, only you and your little circle friends get to attack me with insults.

      MIKE SPINDELL SAYS, “an ass or an “Opposites” troll. Boring and off base in either iteration. You got no game sonny, only ineffectual outrage or insults.”

      You folks really need to get over yourselves.

      1. “Now I get how it works, Mike. Apparently I didn’t get the memo that I have to be here long enough before I use charachterizations. Until then, only you and your little circle friends get to attack me with insults.”


        The problem is you don’t get how it works here and that’s because you are so full of yourself that you don’t bother to read. As far as characterizations go you are the one who began it, as shown from your quotes below. It was after that that Tony began to mildly attack you back and I think given your misassumptions he was quite entitled to do it.

        Quote 1.
        “Sanctimonious Crappola. Yeah right, a choice between a bigot living in loony land and the Guy who had to clean up the mess left by the last group of loonys from the Republican Party, and you pick the bigot from loony land…”

        “Of course, in your view, the police have a right to shoot a person who looks at them the wrong way, but the president does not have the right to do it with a guy who is hiding out from arrest in a foreign country.

        Quote 2.
        “Must be nice to live in your world where reality doesn’t exist so you go right ahead and vote for Ron Paul. And btw, I don’t believe for a minute you ever voted for Obama, so what does that make you?”

        Like, i said you have a terminal case of selective rants. You are also a liar when you say you voted for Obama. You are a shill so at least have the courage to admit it and stand up for your hate like a man.”

        Quote 3.
        “Mr. Turley, I need to inform you that there is some form of mental disease that is propagated by any form of participation on your website. It typically manifests itself by lack of facts, or use of half truths, an insistence on being correct while all others are in some way stupid or ignorant, and a delusional grandiosity of ones self such as the claim, “Both of us [MS and TC] are analytically gifted”.”

        The reference to your short term here was not because anyone commenting here is viewed as a “newbie”, but because you make assumptions about people you disagree with that are incorrect because you haven’t looked at their body of work here. Beyond that though, you appear by your words to be one of those kind of people who characterize all that disagree with them as evil and stupid. That is a mark of political/emotional immaturity. I too think many of the so-called leaders of today are evil, but that is after I have taken the time to assess their body of work. Everyone who I disagree with is not an evil person and everyone who I agree with is not necessarily a good person.

        I know for a fact that Tony C. is a progressive liberal. How do I know that? It’s because of his writing. Take a look at the huge thread on here called:

        “What Makes A Good Law, What Makes a Bad Law?”

        You will see positive proof of not only Tony’s progressiveness, but in his analytical expertise in demolishing both Libertarian and conservative thought, in more than 400 long comments in a colloquy with a libertarian and a conservative.

        Nevertheless, this is a blog created by a distinguished civil liberties lawyer and Law Professor. A Constitutional Law expert of note. That is the basis of what most blogs and comments are about and I as a guest blogger also have a long history here as well as many blogs that you can access and probably thousands of comments, where you can clearly discern where I’m coming from. I use my real name here, as do all guest bloggers. You are merely a recent pseudonym arrival who in your brief time has managed to wrongly characterize people about which you’ve haven’t taken the time to know. If your only judgment of people is that they are good if they agree with you and bad if they do’t, how in fact are you any different than the FOXNews crowd who are reality challenged?

        Now as far as President Obama goes, I clearly stated here numerous times that I would vote to re-elect him, urged others to do so and gave my opinion as to why I believed it to be the best course. I’ve been voting for 47 years and I’ve never once voted for a Republican, or even failed to vote in any elections. However, this doesn’t mean that I am just rooting for my Democratic “home team”, but that I’ve doe so because I perceived that for most of that time there has been an effort by a percentage of the 1% to destroy this country as a Democracy ad create a Feudal Corporatist State. I was a member of the 60’s Movement for Civil Rights and for ending the Viet Nam war. I was also an activist in the most radical labor union of its’ time. My profession was Social Services and I spent a career in service to those in need. I don’t even know if you’ve graduated high school, so you will pardon me if I think you’ve gone off “half-cocked”.

        Regarding Obama, if you don’t understand what a disappointment he has been to may of us who supported him financially and with our votes, than you are little more that a political “football fan” rooting for their favorite team. As a long time supporter of the ACLU for instance civil liberties is a key issue with me and what attracted me to this blog in the first place. Obama’s record on Civil Liberties has been to my mind and many others here dismal to say the least. He has continued and eve tried to expand those noxious policies of the Bush Crime Family. Now I fully understand also that he has been handicapped and possibly even coerced to do so.
        However, there are still people in Guantanamo Bay and there is the threat to lock up “terrorists” without trial ad in contravention to US law. I deplore that.

        On balance though I will vote for Obama, because I believe the alternative is much worse and there exists the possibility that under a Republican regime, our last vestiges of Democracy will be destroyed.
        Tony and many other people feel differently based on Obama’s bad record on civil liberties. I understand why they feel that way and sympathize with their viewpoint. In disagreeing with them I do it civilly because I know their hearts and minds are in the right place, but their perspective differs from mine. Minds as agile as those here always have the possibility of change, as does mine.

        You and I agree on electing Obama, but we are but two people. Others here also agree with the necessity of this. For Obama to be re-elected is an uphill battle and alienating voters is a poor political strategy. You do not win elections by insulting people who are possible allies and as far as I can see you do much harm to your position by casting aspersions upon people who might be able to come around to your point of view.

        You will notice that I’m addressing you in a civil tone, despite the vitriol you’ve been spewing. This is a blog that allows for all manner of opinions and does not banish people for there comments as long as they remain roughly civil and non-threatening to others. Professor Turley allows the widest range of free speech available on the web, but if you abuse civility in your comments don’t be surprised if you’re responded to i kind. There is no “newbie” vs “oldtimer” distinction here, but some of us get slack cut because we’ve produced a body of work that clearly shows our rage of beliefs and opinion. However, ew people come aroud all the time ad their comments are welcome provide they are mad with a modicum of civil discourse.

        1. Mike, forgive me (or not) I will pass on reading all that silliness. I get it I’m full of it, your full of it, Tony C, full of even more of it….. i get it i get i get it even though I am not as analytically gifted as you and TC.

        2. BTW, Mike are you really that full of yourself that you don’t get sarcasam when its slapping you in the face. You need to spend a little more time watching Comedy Central. Get out of the house once and a while, the sunshine will do you and your mind some good.

  8. Just my $.02 worth. I agree with Mike Spindell in his comment just above. I never really cared for ad hominem attacks or pie fights.

  9. “Mr. Turley, I need to inform you that there is some form of mental disease that is propagated by any form of participation on your website. It typically manifests itself by lack of facts, or use of half truths, an insistence on being correct while all others are in some way stupid or ignorant, and a delusional grandiosity of ones self such as the claim, “Both of us [MS and TC] are analytically gifted”.”


    When you first arrived on the scene hers, I was impressed by your thoughts. However, as your comments have multiplied, your hysteria has risen to a peak that makes it annoying. Since I agree with you on voting for Obama, I find it distasteful to associate myself with someone whose remarks will tend to bring about the opposite result that person reportedly favored.
    Either dial it down a bit with your stupid personal attacks, or the suspicion will of necessity arise that you are actually playing a little game of opposites.
    If you are really sincere I think you are defeating your purpose.

    I disagree with Tony on this particular issue, but he has been around long enough for me to know his positions on a great many issues. He is quite intelligent and always thorough. I think he’s wrong on Paul, but he is very far from the person you infer him to be. From his writing I like him and respect him. From your writing in my mind the jury is still out.

    1. Well, since you are, according to you, “analytically gifted” along with Tony C. then it must be so. And of course since Mister “Turley just happens to be in agreement with me [Tony C.]”, according to Tony C. that must also make it so. Boy oh boy that sure is analytically gift” thinking. (I’m sure Mister Turley must get a laugh thinking HE agrees with Tony C.)

      I don’t think either of you realize how silly you sound, and mind you this has nothing to do with whether you agree with me on Obama or not (in fact you don’t because yours is a choice based on distaste of the alternative. you are what is known as a an apologetic).

      Here is a simple fact: Tony C. claims he is a “far left liberal” but he is supporting/promoting Ron Paul who most people would say is a conservative libertarian who is running for the presidential nomination on the Republican/Tparty ticket. Now if you don’t find that to be an political oxymoron then perhaps you should double check those analytical gifts of yours.

      As near as I can tell following the conversations here they read much more like what pubescent boys do in a circle then anything resembling reasoned analysis. Call it opinion if you like – everybody’s got one and is entitled to it – but lets not pretend what goes on here is real analysis connected to the real world based on real facts.

      Lets close for the moment with comments from your partner in the circle”

      “Tony C.1, June 11, 2008 at 11:15 pm

      Hey stupid. Yes you, all those idiots who don’t know nothing about anything. Usful idiots, the lot of you.

      Do you know how Muslims treat Dogs? How dogs are treated in muslim countries? How they send groups of men to shoot dogs on sight?

      No? Because you all are hypocritical anti-war peacnik idiots. The same idiots who say we should not pour water on a terrorist’s head (waterboard) yet don’t have anything to say about the terrorist cutting the heads off innocent civilians and broadcasting it on TV.

      You make me sick.”

  10. Tony,

    What do you think of this link?–_%27cuddly%27_libertarian_has_some_very_dark_politics?page=4

    Ad my response to it on the Kayser thread?

    “At the John Birch Society 50th anniversary gala, Ron Paul spoke to another favorite theme of the Reconstructionists and others in the religious right: that of the “remnant” left behind after evil has swept the land. (Gary North’s publication is called The Remnant Review.) In a dispatch on Paul’s keynote address, The New American, the publication of the John Birch Society, explained, “He claimed that the important role the JBS has played was to nurture that remnant and added, ‘The remnant holds the truth together, both the religious truth and the political truth.’”

    This quote is from SwM’s link above. The John Birch Society has throughout its long history been racist, misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Jewish. It does not and never has accepted democracy, but instead favors rule by the wealthy elite. For Paul to be speaking at any JBS event, much less their 50th anniversary, means he is one with them. I don’t understand how anyone can believe he will protect our civil liberties.

  11. @1zb1: On the contrary, I think for myself, and unlike you I have no crippling deference to authority. Turley just happens to be in agreement with me.

    It is you that is clearly bowed by authoritarianism, you just take the Obama administration’s word for it when they claim killing Awlaki without any form of due process was “necessary.” They didn’t present you any proof, they didn’t present you any argument, even the things they explicitly claimed he did were entirely within his rights as a citizen.

    And, I would point out, it isn’t Mr. Turley, he holds a juris doctor, he is a professor, it is Dr. Turley or Professor Turley or just Turley; he is specifically not a “Mister.” If you are going to pretend to intellectualism, at least get the terminology right.

    As for putting his mind in gear, the “post” was an article in The Los Angeles Times, and the talk on the radio was about that article, I am quite familiar with academia and I highly doubt PROFESSOR Turley wrote this article on a whim. I am confident it was not undertaken lightly and the result reflects his best considered opinion on the matter.

  12. anon nurse,
    interesting clip of Gingrich crying over his mother’s problems. I have sympathy for what his mother went through, but does he tear up when he thinks about his ex-wifes cancer and his divorcing her?

  13. More specifically, here is the full Turley Blog post on “Obama and the decline of the American Civil Liberties Movement.”

    I think, 1zb1, you are demanding that Professor Turley censor his own post.

    1. Believe it or not, even Mr. Turley needs to put mind in gear before engaging post on occassion… (fyi don’t have time right now to read his post, but the idea still applies)

  14. @Mike: My problem is very seldom with what Obama says, my problem is with what he has done.

  15. If there were a qualifying test, 1zb1, I imagine you would have disqualified yourself with your first lie about me. It is just your good luck that Professor Turley seems to believe in freedom of speech.

    As for what Paul has said, it is no different than what most libertarians espouse, if you want to see my comprehensive refutation of that logic, I refer you to Gene Howington’s guest post on this blog, “What makes a Good Law, What makes a Bad Law?”

    On the other hand, if you would like to read Professor Turley’s take on Obama and civil liberties, read THIS POST. Here is an excerpt: “Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University, wrote that President Obama may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties.”

    I am not surprised you advocate censorship, it is not uncommon for ideologues to want to suppress dissent, and that damn freedom of speech is so pesky, isn’t it?

    1. So, Tony, you want from God RP to God JT… and here I thought monotheism ruled the land.

      Oh, and I would certainly disqualify myself. Think of all the time I would stop wasting “conversing’ with you.

  16. “My analysis of this campaign promise is that he cannot make it happen, and it simply won’t happen.’


    Your analysis is not good enough. Both of us are analytically gifted, yet we got Obama wrong. However, Obama never said the stuff Paul has and most Republicans in the Congress are batshit crazy.

Comments are closed.