June 26, 2016

Newt Gingrich had a rough time trying to withstand a fact checking of Donald Trump's many falsehoods under FNS' Chris Wallace' scrutiny.

Newt Gingrich did his best to try and stay on Trump's shortlist for VP on Fox News Sunday earlier today when he attempted to defend Trump's false statements about Hillary Clinton and his many flip flops on his own policies.

It culminated in this questing when Wallace asked, "On a trip to -- this trip this weekend to Scotland, Trump seemed to flip on two of his major policies. I'm going to talk about both of those. He now says he wants to ban Muslims only from what he calls terror states, not all Muslims as he said before. And he said he doesn't consider mass deportations part of his immigration plan."

"What does Trump stand for?"


This forced Gingrich to give an answer that would sink any other presidential candidate in any election. He said, "I think he stands for an evolving to come to grips with really big problems."

That's the best you got?

This ludicrous answer prompted Wallace to follow up with, "Does evolving mean that what he said last week doesn't stand this week?" Wallace replied, "It may evolve as the facts evolve and as he learns more. I mean, this is a guy who was never in public policy until June of last year."

Any presumptive nominee in any general election cycle would be vilified mercilessly by the press for continuing to flip flop on his core campaign polices almost every day. and one that doesn't understand any of the issues that president must lead on.

That's the way it went for Newt Gingrich this morning.

The interview began by him trying to defend Trump's obvious lie that HRC was sleeping in the day when the Benghazi attack took place.

TRUMP:...He was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed.


WALLACE: Now, Mr. Speaker, you can certainly argue about how Hillary Clinton handled Benghazi. But the fact is, the attack happened at 3:00 or 4:00 here in the afternoon in Washington. And she was working late into the night.As I say, there's plenty to attack her on. But why not stick to the facts?

This forced Newt to use the "some people say" defense of Trump when he said, "Well, first of all, I've had different people say different things about what she did that night and what her instructions were. Second --"

Wallace immediately cut in, "She wasn't asleep is the point."

Newt was forced to use the typical beltway media motif of both sides do it and said, "I think that on a lot of things people can argue about that Trump says and that Hillary says..."

No they won't, Newt. Trump is a serial liar, period and there is no defending that.

At the end of the interview, Gingrich changed positions on Trump, who now wants geography to be the determining factor of immigration, when he reiterated his push to asks refugees to take Sharia Law/ISIS loyalty tests.

All in all it was a good interview for Wallace, who didn't hide his affections for newt, but still asked some pertinent questions.

And Newt never had a credible answer on tow core questions. Why does he not stick to real facts in his criticisms of others and what does he actually stand for?

Mr. Speaker, question: what does Trump stand for?

GINGRICH: I think he stands for an evolving to come to grips with really big problems. But --
WALLACE: Does evolving mean that what he said last week doesn't stand this week?

GINGRICH: If may evolve as the facts evolve and as he learns more. I mean, this is a guy who was never in public policy until June of last year. And over the last year, he has learned a great deal. Sometimes he has been flat wrong. You know I've been very tough on your show when I thought he was flat wrong.

And he has changed things as he has learned more. He will keep changing. But the core direction difference is enormous.

He does -- by the way, I would apply a test for Sharia and a test for loyalty to ISIS rather than geographic test, because we're fighting people all over the world who are dangerous to us. So, it's hard to say which countries really are the Islamic terrorist countries.

But I do think you will find most Americans -- we released a poll on this Friday. Most Americans would like to see a much tougher and tighter view of how you deal with terrorism. And, Trump, while details may be evolving, details are evolving in the same direction of how do we get a grip on this thing.

Can you help us out?

For nearly 20 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.