That alone is reason to suspect she’s lying. I mean, what are the odds? Then you add in her claim to know something that’ll keep Newt Gingrich from ever becoming president, something we haven’t learned about him already, and it becomes even less plausible:
“I know something you don’t know! I know something you don’t know!” Didn’t she try this just last month? And didn’t she clam up when Gingrich pointed out she’d be violating House rules? Heh. As if she cares about “rules…” Well, she also predicted she’d still be Speaker of the House after the last election, so maybe she’s not as clairvoyant as she thinks.
Newt responded to her latest taunt this morning:
“Spit it out” might not be the best choice of words, Newt, but I take your meaning. We’ll see if this shuts her up about it for another month or so.
Meanwhile, Byron York asks: What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case? The short version is that he didn’t break any laws and the IRS exonerated him. The long version is worth reading because the whole thing was stupid and insane. Did you know the witch-hunt was led by Cooter from The Dukes of Hazzard? And yes, I’m well aware of the irony of Newt Gingrich getting into trouble over Cooter.
P.S. The Hill: Pelosi’s office says she has no new dirt on Newt Gingrich. Well, how about that.
P.P.S. Gingrich: “Frankly, I’d rather have her threaten me than endorse me.” I just don’t foresee any more cuddling on the couch for these two.