BloggeRhythms

Having no interest in the Republican presidential debate tonight, led to giving some thought regarding those who’ll be on the stage. 

One of those to participate is Ben Carson, whose Wikipedia bio revealed that he served as Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland from 1984 until his retirement in 2013. 

That information led to the question of where in the world could this highly accomplished medical practitioner have gained the background required to preside over the greatest nation on earth? Including its economy, military, foreign policy, environment, agriculture, housing and urban development, commerce, interior, justice, transportation, treasury, veterans affairs or any other aspect of its many other departmental functionalities? 

Putting the question in reverse, if any intelligent citizen required specialized surgery, would they seek a smooth talking politician as the practitioner? Obviously, regardless of what an untried newcomer promised, they certainly wouldn't. 

Which brings us back to the value of the debate itself. Because other than those who have served successfully at least as governors, how in the world can any candidate possibly know first-hand what the scope of the job entails? Or get the experience needed to run a multi-trillion dollar budget administered by layer upon layer of bureaucrats. 

Therefore, these amateurs can “debate” until they faint, but none of them have an iota of proof that they know what they’re spouting about. And as far as the three governors in the race are concerned, their records are public and proven with very little difference among them. So what’s the point of debating? Any one of them would likely make an excellent chief executive.     

On another aspect of the topic, a totally unqualified presidential wannabe added to his image of inconsistent performance and vacillation today.     

FoxNews.com reports that: “Donald Trump, who's planning to boycott [tonight’s] Fox News/Google debate, once criticized Republican candidates who refused to attend a forum he tried to put together.  

"We're not seeing a lot of courage," Trump said in a 2011 interview, about a debate he was trying to host with Newsmax.  

“The interview, it so happens, was with Megyn Kelly -- the same Fox News anchor Trump is now criticizing. But in 2011, Trump praised her moderating skills.  

“Kelly, at the time, asked him, “Do you really think you’re a better moderator than I am?” 

“Trump replied, “No. I could never beat you. That wouldn’t even be close. That would be no contest.” 

He added, “You have done a great job, by the way. And I mean it.”  

“The Trump/Newsmax debate did not end up going forward.  

“On Tuesday, Trump said he would not participate in Thursday’s Fox News/Google debate. Though Trump has said he had concerns with debate co-moderator Kelly, his campaign claimed Wednesday his decision to skip the event had nothing to do with her. 

“However, Trump again went after the Fox News host Wednesday morning on Twitter, calling her a “lightweight reporter.” 

“As for Kelly, she said Tuesday, “The debate will go on with or without Mr. Trump.” 

So, here we have another case where headlines revolve around issues having nothing whatsoever to do with Trump’s qualifications or capabilities to successfully perform as POTUS. However, on a personal level, which certainly can significantly affect job performance, the indication’s are that someone as mercurial as Trump seems to be extremely questionable regarding long-term reliability from those depending on his consistency. 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano @FoxNews.com, writes today: “Hillary Clinton’s nightmare is not the sudden resurgence of Bernie Sanders. It is the fidelity to the rule of law of the FBI. "

According to the judge: “The recent revelations of the receipt by Clinton of a Special Access Program email, as well as cut and pasted summaries of state secrets on her server and on her BlackBerry nearly guarantee that the FBI will recommend that the Department of Justice convene a grand jury and seek her indictment for espionage.” 

The judge breaks the issue into two broad categories: “One is her well-documented failure to safeguard state secrets and the other is her probable use of her position as secretary of state to advance financially her husband’s charitable foundation.” 

“Among the data that the FBI either found on the Clinton server or acquired from the State Department via its responses to Freedom of Information Act requests is a top-secret email that has been denominated Special Access Program. Top secret is the highest category of state secrets (the other categories are confidential and secret), and of the sub-parts of top secret, SAP is the most sensitive.” 

Of most importance is the fact that: “SAP is clothed in such secrecy that it cannot be received or opened accidentally. Clinton -- who ensured all of her governmental emails came to her through her husband’s server, a nonsecure nongovernmental venue -- could only have received or viewed it from that server after inputting certain codes. Those codes change at unscheduled times, such that she would need to inquire of them before inputting them.” 

“The presence of the SAP-denominated email on her husband’s server, whether opened or not, shows a criminal indifference to her lawful obligation to maintain safely all state secrets entrusted to her care.” 

Furthermore, “[I}n this sensitive area of the law, plausible deniability is not an available defense; no judge would permit the assertion of it in legal filings or in a courtroom, and no lawyer would permit a client to make the assertion. 

In conclusion, “[F]ailure to safeguard state secrets is a crime for which the government need not prove intent. The failure can be done negligently. Thus, plausible deniability is actually an admission of negligence and, hence in this case, an admission of guilt, not a denial."

And, “Clinton signed an oath under penalty of perjury on Jan. 22, 2009, her first full day as secretary of state. In that oath, she acknowledged that she had received a full FBI briefing on the lawfully required care and keeping of state secrets. Her briefing and her oath specified that the obligation to safeguard state secrets is absolute -- it cannot be avoided or evaded by forgetfulness or any other form of negligence, and that negligence can bring prosecution.” 

Which adds considerably to the importance of the daily question: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?      

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios