Michelle Malkin » Pelosi Backs Off Gingrich Dirt

Pelosi Backs Off Gingrich Dirt

By Doug Powers • December 6, 2011 11:22 AM

**Written by Doug Powers

In a recent interview, Nancy Pelosi implied that being on an ethics committee that investigated Newt Gingrich in the 1990′s put her in a position to know secrets about him that she just might be willing to spill at some point.

After being called on it, Pelosi’s office now says she didn’t imply that — it’s just that everybody misunderstood what she was saying:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi now says she is not sitting on a trove of opposition research on former House Speaker-turned-GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

In an interview conducted Friday and published Monday, Pelosi hinted that once the time is right she has some juicy stories to tell about her former colleague.

“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi, D-Calif., told Talking Points Memo. “I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him. Four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

But this afternoon, Pelosi’s spokesman, Drew Hammill, suggested that her comments have been misconstrued beyond the leader’s intent.

“Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” Hammill wrote in a statement.

The Gingrich dirt with which Pelosi was tantalizing Talking Points Memo is stuff from a 1997 report everybody’s had access to? I haven’t seen backpedaling like that since Lance Armstrong’s brake cables snapped while careening down Filbert Street.

For those of you keeping score at home, here’s the latest sports update:

Newt – 1
Nancy – 0

(h/t Red State)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: 2012 Campaign,Nancy Pelosi,Newt Gingrich

Printer Friendly

comments (111)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On December 6th, 2011 at 5:15 pm, Misscheryl said:

Asks the person we haven’t heard from in a while.

I just took a break for awhile. I have very little to add but really enjoy reading everyone’s input.
#102

On December 6th, 2011 at 6:31 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

On December 06, 2011 at 03:06 pm, babiesgrandma said:

Flyoverman: Are you serious about Romney et al saying they aren’t going to attack the Demonuts and oblamo?

That is soooooooo McLame. What is up with that? I know Mitt thinks he is a nice guy, but this is a war!

Haven’t you realized, Romkneejerk is one of them!
#103

On December 6th, 2011 at 6:42 pm, AmericanGirl30 said:

On December 06, 2011 at 02:21 PM, Truesoldier said:

Socialists hate the middle class.They love the poor. That is why they want so many more of them

Makes sense. It is far easier to control people who have never had anything than it is to control people who know there is something better.

True, and also it is much easier to addict the poor to what socialist government provides
#104

On December 6th, 2011 at 6:46 pm, AmericanGirl30 said:

Oops hit post too soon… Anyway it’s easier to impose your will on people who want you to take care of them, and they will much more easily buy the line that what you are doing is “for their own good.” They feel more of a need for you, and have less means to revolt if ever they get tired of your tyranny. And it’s easier to rouse them to your side against the “enemy” (anyone richer than them) and to get them to feel that the “enemy” has done them wrong and that you are their champion.
#105

On December 6th, 2011 at 6:48 pm, Truesoldier said:

In other news, Alec Bladwin got booted from a plan for refusing to turn off his cell phone and Romney is the latest GOP candidate to decide not to do the Donald’s debate.
#106

On December 6th, 2011 at 9:13 pm, Republicanvet said:

On December 06, 2011 at 10:31 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

For a short time today Drudge had the headline Pelosi to put the stink on Newt
Gone now for some reason.
All I can is Eeeeeewwwwww!

…only a cunning stunt ….
#107

On December 6th, 2011 at 9:54 pm, John Deaux said:

On December 6th, 2011 at 5:15 pm, Misscheryl said:

I have very little to add …

If that were true, I wouldn’t have noticed you were gone.
#108

On December 6th, 2011 at 9:58 pm, Republicanvet said:

On December 06, 2011 at 12:34 pm, Hangfire said:

On December 6th, 2011 at 2:31 pm, spaceycakes said:

Marshall_Will said:…Just b/c HE was in the dark for 8 years doesn’t mean the rest of us were?

at least he was warm, there in the dark.

As a mushroom, Gore should embrace global warming.

Warm, kept in the dark, fungi…..all he needs.

Don’t forget the “and feed ‘em bu!!sh!t” part.

Gore would then be a whole new class of jumbo ‘shroom if you include that.
#109

On December 6th, 2011 at 10:12 pm, fred5676 said:

So when Nance was on that couch with Newt, that was her INsincere smile?????
#110

On December 6th, 2011 at 10:18 pm, fred5676 said:

Nancy, go back home and spend a day in your precious “San Francisco values” Folsom Street parade and help out some of the guys hanging out there.

Let me make that easy for you, Nance:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=folsom+street+zombietime
#111

On December 7th, 2011 at 8:33 pm, sbw999 said:

If it was already in the public domain them how could she control the release of the info at a convenient time, later on??? Good thing most liberals (including in the media) have IQ’s under 20. Otherwise they would see through the complete BS that spews from the mouths of lib pols.