You have to follow this closely, because it is classic Wolf Blitzer: liar and alll-around despiocable, evil person. Here is the NONSENSE, trulyu STUPID, question Wolf Blitzer asked Newt Gingrich:
"Mitt Romney has now released his tax returns. You hae said you are satisfied wtih that. I want to get it clear: Are lyou now satisfied with Mitt Romney's disclosures on his persoanl finances." (Now Wolf may have left out the wrod "disclousures", but that would have been DISHONEST; what am I saying? Wolf Blitzer is a DIHHONEST person on a DISHONEST network.)
Gingrich's (correctr) answer:, looking at Rick Santourm, who had just complained aoubt talking aoubt these "side" personal issues instead of the real issues: "We worked together a long time (referring to Sntourm). You are ifghhht. Thisis a NONSENSE question."
Wolf Blitzer, LIar: "Well, Speaker Gignrich , you are th eone who said this week that Mitt Romney had Swiss bank accounts, and accounts int he Cayman Islands. If you are going to make a major, serious attack on another canddiate, you should be willing to aanswer questions about it.".
Do yoou see the LIE here? The DISPICABLE LIE on The Liear Network? You should. Wol f Blitzer did NOT ask Netw Gingrich about Mitt Romney's investments in the Cayman Islands or Swiss bank accounts. Thus, the real qeustion here is WHY Wolf Blitzer LIED so blatanntly here? Was it an example of CNN being IN THE TANK for Romney, and trying to derail Gingrich? Maybe. Maybe not. But Wolf Blitzer for some reason PROVED (through his own words) that he asked a deliberately DISHOENST question. His question purported to be about whether Gingrich was satisfied with Romney's disclosure of his tax returns, when Blitzer deliberately tried to MORPH the question into a HIDDEN attempt to get Gingrich to say he was"satisfied" with ALL of the Mitt Romney's "personal finances". I know that the question did not say "all". But that is the LIE. You cannot interpret wolf Blitzer said, when challenged abut a NONSENSE question, other than that Blizer was trying to set a SECRET TGRAP for Gingrich, by referring to release of tax returns when Blitgazer was LATER going to say the question was about something else (a more general endorsement of ALL of Romney's finances). YOU LIAR, WOLF BLITZER. This blog has shown many times that ou are one of the most DISHONEST "newsw" people who has ever lived. Doubtr me? Never do tha sse the earlier article today) I am not through.
Wolf Blitzer, as is usal on The Liar Network (and all of the media), was able to immediately get the support of ALL of CNN, as the media ALWAYS stands behind its ownl--even when it makes almost all people view them with total CONTEMPT (as I do). Anyway, in this friendly forum, Gold old LIAR Wol LIED yet again. He said: "You notice that when I did not back down, Gingrich eventrtually ansered the question>" There are TOW LIEWS here. First, Gingrich did NOT "answer" the ORIGINAL QUESITON. What happened was that Romney (not to his credit) intervened as Gingrich was trying to get support on state for limiting the debate to more substance. Romney said: "A canddiate who says someting outside these debates should be willing to deend what he says in the debate forum. That is a big problem here." (or wwrods to taht effectt).
Gingrich "answered" ROMNEY (as he had to do), and NOT Wolf Blitzer. And it was a DIFFERENT question (about those Swiss bank accounts and accounts in the Cayman Islands). Wolf, you just PROVED lyourself to be a LIAR, twice over.
Now remember this blog's CHALLENGE to the media: Are yo not interested in WHY Mitt Romney had accounts in the Cayman Islands? What was the PURPOSE of those accounts? What kind of accoutns? WHY in the Cayman Island? This is another case where Wolf Blitzer is a LIEAR on The Liar Network. MSNBC is already-as this blog said--makng a big deal about thos FOREIGN accounts, and the Cayman Islands are NOTORIOUS about operating as TQAX DODGES, or other legal, but somewhat shady, types of transactions. Against Barack Obama, what will CNN say about the Cayman Isalands? Maybe some on CNN are already saying it, but NOT when it could be of help to Newt Gingrich. suddenly, CNN is gong to think it is "funny" that Romney had foreing bank accounts, blind trust or no blind trust, includingin a lplace known for being used as a DODGE for taxes or other concealment. Again, however, note theat Wolf Blitzer and the mainstream media are NOT INTERESTED in WHY there were those accounts int he Cayman Islands. Thre must be a REASON. Invetments? That is a reason you might invest in, say, CHINA. The Cayman Islands are really known for one thing: FINACIAL SHENNIGANS. There is not really such a thing as "investment" in the Cayman Islands (at least, not without explanation) If any financial insitution is offering 'higher returns" int he Cayman Islands, you might well wonder whether it has something to do with what the Cayman Islands are FAMOUS for. No one simply "invests" in theCayman Islands, rather than, say, Wells Fargo 9r, yes, Swiss banks. This is NOT a matter of "diversification"--one of the most DISHONEST things Romney said tonight. As this blog has suggested, the Cayman Islands hardly even exist as a "real" contry. A Cayman Islands "address" is often about the equivalent of a post office box. Nope. I am NOT saying this is a reason to vote against Romney. I am saing that I am MILKDLY CUROUS as to WHY Romney would have "investments" in the Cayman Islands. "Diversification" is NOT an answer. It is an EVASIONI. I don't have any such curiosity about Siwss bank accounts.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).