BloggeRhythms

According to Ian Hanchet @breitbart.com, Mitt Romney asked some pointed questions yesterday about Trump.

 

In a completely logical, well-informed manner Romney said: “I think there’s something there, either he’s not as anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is, or he hasn’t been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn’t been giving money to the vets, or to the disabled, like he’s been telling us he’s been doing. And I think that’s — the reason that I think there’s a bombshell in there, is because every time he’s asked about his taxes, he dodges and delays and says, well, we’re working on it. 

Romney went on: "Hey, we’re not talking about the taxes that are coming due this year. Of course they’re working on those. They won’t be ready for months. We’re talking about taxes already filed, back taxes. And my back taxes, when I ran in 2012, my back taxes, I put out in January of 2012. We’re now in late February and we still haven’t seen either Donald Trump’s, or Marco Rubio’s, or Ted Cruz’s taxes. And frankly the voters have a right to see those tax returns before they decide who our nominee ought to be.”

Continuing the perfectly reasonable train of thought, Romney concluded, “You know, Donald Trump has said he’s the best in the country for the disabled veterans, and for the disabled generally. Well, if his taxes show that he hasn’t made any contributions to the disabled veterans, or to the disabled generally, that would be a big issue. So — and I’m not saying that’s the case. I have no evidence of that. But I’m just saying there are things that could be issues, and when people decide they don’t want to give you their taxes, it’s usually because there’s something they don’t want you to see.”

Thus, as the campaign heats up, it should be expected that demands for confirmation of what’s been promised or said will occur far more often from those against Trump in any way.  And, as history's consistently shown, there's plenty of troublesome stuff in that closet of his.

On another issue, Burgess Everett @politico.com writes about Harry Reid’s major testimony to hypocrisy in the Senate yesterday. 

According to Mr. Everett, “Reid unleashed a blunt and blistering attack on longtime GOP colleague Chuck Grassley, accusing the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman of ceding his panel’s autonomy to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and being an inept leader of the committee.” 

Furious over the GOP’s plan to block President Barack Obama from filling the Supreme Court vacancy, Reid lambasted Grassley (R-Iowa) for refusing to meet with the president to discuss the vacancy this week. “Grassley and his committee’s Republican members wrote McConnell on Tuesday to confirm they would refuse to even hold a hearing for Obama’s nominee, and the Des Moines Register reported that Grassley has declined an invitation to visit with Obama.” 

In this case, Reid, by far the most biased and worst Senate Majority Leader in many years, is getting a taste of his own medicine. Because, although Grassley has thus far declined to respond in kind to Reid, he’s used Vice President Joe Biden’s words to justify his efforts to bar a nominee from a hearing. Speaking Monday, Grassley quoted Biden at length from an old speech, claiming that he is merely operating under the “Biden rules” in denying a confirmation during an election year. 

Grassley said: “If the president of the United States insists on submitting a nominee under these circumstances, Sen. Biden, my friend from Delaware, the man who sat at a desk across the aisle and at the back of this Chamber for more than 35 years, knows what the Senate should do.” 

The situation has particular meaning because, Reid “infuriated Grassley in 2013 by changing the Senate’s rules and confirming dozens of mostly liberal judges while Reid was still majority leader. Grassley has smarted at criticisms of his leadership ever since, insisting that as chairman he would have processed many of those nominations without affecting Senate precedent.” 

Reid’s reaction to Grassley yesterday was remindful of sewer-worker Ed Norton on the old Jackie Gleason show, who said: “I've always followed that old adage, "Be kind to the people you meet on the way down because you're going to meet the same people on the way up."

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

Yesterday, Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne @FoxNews.com, reported: “Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed to Congress Wednesday that career Justice Department attorneys are working with FBI agents on the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email practices and the handling of classified material.

“Legal experts say the assignment of career Justice Department attorneys to the case shows the FBI probe has progressed beyond the initial referral, or "matured," giving agents access to the U.S. government’s full investigative tool box, including subpoena power for individuals, business or phone records, as well as witnesses.” 

While the Associated Press reported earlier this month that career lawyers were involved, Lynch's comments are the most expansive to Congress to date, in which she said: "...that matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate."  

Confirming that the FBI criminal investigation is ongoing, and no recommendation or referral on possible charges had been made to her, she said, “I am not able to comment about the specific investigation at this time. But what I will say is again that this will be conducted as every other case. And we will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as to how to best handle it. And I'm also aware of no efforts to undermine our review or investigation into this matter at all." 

At the same time that the FBI investigation sharpens focus, Tyler Tynes @The Huffington Post via msn.com/Drudge, reports that three days before the South Carolina primary where turnout from black voters will be key to clinching the Democratic nomination, two Black Lives Matter activists interrupted a private Clinton fundraising event in Charleston, South Carolina. 

One of them, Ashley Williams protested Bill’s wife, demanding that she account for inconsistencies on her record on race. Specifically comments made about crime in 1996. 

During the $500.00 per person fundraiser, with around 100 people attending, as Bill’s wife spoke to the crowd, Williams stood to her side and held a sign quoting controversial statements made in 1996 when she said "we have to bring them to heel" in reference to at-risk youth.  

Williams, “said she was motivated to protest because policies during President Bill Clinton's administration led to an increase in mass incarceration that mostly struck black communities. She pointed to the three-strike federal laws, the elimination of rehabilitative programs and an emphasis on prison construction that were part of the Clinton legacy on crime.” 

Bill’s wife has distanced herself from these policies, recently issuing a detailed agenda on racial justice. But Williams wants more, saying in a statement before the event: “Hillary Clinton has a pattern of throwing the Black community under the bus when it serves her politically. She called our boys ‘super-predators’ in ’96, then she race-baited when running against Obama in ‘08, now she’s a lifelong civil rights activist. I just want to know which Hillary is running for President, the one from ’96, ’08, or the new Hillary?” 

And that’s been the story of Bill’s wife career. Expedience always outweighs substance, regardless of the issues at hand. Because in her continual attempt to gain the most for herself possible, as far as consistency’s concerned, what difference does it make? 

Bringing up the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks.    

Adios