BloggeRhythms

At 11:30AM this morning, Mitt Romney delivered a scathing speech at the University of Utah, totally disparaging Trump. 

While making no specific endorsement, Romney declared that Cruz, Rubio or Kasich would be better for both, the nation and the future of the Republican party.

Taking on Trump’s campaign issues individually, Romney carefully explained the flaws in each, including immigration, foreign policy and the economy. And that, the “only serious policy proposals” for the country are coming from the other Republican candidates on the field.

Moving on, Romney said: “As one businessman to another,” mocking Trump’s record of failed companies. The list included Trump’s four bankrupt casino’s, airline, magazine, mortgage business and particularly Trump University. 

In summation, Romney said, “I understand the anger Americans feel today. Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing ... the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.”

And then, admitting he might be proven wrong, he challenged Trump to release his back tax returns and “secret interview” with the New York Times.

Some research shows that, according to Byron York @washingtonexaminer.com: Trump “told the Times something to the effect that he might not actually push for the deportation of all 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States "because it's going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session."

“In other words, the story goes, Trump's tough talk on immigration is just talk. He doesn't really mean what he's been telling voters, who will be outraged when they find out that their presidential choice has not been honest with them. Or at least that's the story.” 

Now, whether Romney’s attempts to derail Trump will gain any traction remains to be seen. But if nothing else, in an extremely dignified and thoroughly professional manner, Romney offered an accurate and straightforward description of Trump’s highly flawed history and myriad mistakes. 

And, sadly for Romney, had he done the same thing to his opponent when he ran against Obama, today we’d probably all be calling him “President Romney.”   

Below is an article by Bill Barrow and Emily Swanson of the Associated Press via Drudge. It’s included today because in reading it, one would assume Trump won Super Tuesday’s contests by landslides. However, I’ve included a question following the text which no one in the media seems able to answer. 

According to the authors: “Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump continues to demonstrate a wide base of support, riding record turnouts to seven victories out of the 11 states where Republicans cast Super Tuesday ballots. 

“Exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and other media across nine of the states showed Trump drawing significant support across educational, ideological, age and income classifications. Perhaps most important for Trump: Even among voting groups where he was weakest, he maintained enough strength to deny Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio any chance of catching him. 

“It was a repeat of the billionaire businessman's performance in February, when he won three of the first four nominating contest. On Tuesday, he added states as disparate as Vermont, Virginia and Alabama to his win column. 

"We have expanded the Republican Party," Trump gloated Tuesday night in his victory speech.” 

So, if so many voters find him so appealing, why was his average “win” only 35% of the total vote nationwide?  

The answer is: 65% of voters preferred someone else. 

And then, A FB friend posted this today. Another added the caption: “They know nothing.” 

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

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, @FoxNews.com, writes: “It is fair to call this a scandal because it consists of the public revelation of the private and probably criminal misdeeds of the nation’s chief diplomat during President Barack Obama’s first term in office. Clinton’s job as secretary of state was to keep secrets. Instead, she exposed them to friend and foe. The exposure of state secrets, either intentionally or negligently, constitutes the crime of espionage. For the secretary of state to have committed espionage is, quite simply, scandalous.

“We are not addressing just a handful of emails. To date, the State Department has revealed the presence of more than 2,000 emails on her private server that contained state secrets -- and four that were select access privilege, or SAP. The SAP emails require special codes in order to access them. The codes change continually, and very few people in the government have the codes. SAP is a sub-category of "top secret," and it constitutes the highest level of protected secrecy, for the utmost protection of the government’s gravest secrets. It is unheard of for SAP-level data to reside in a non-secure, vulnerable venue -- yet that is where Clinton caused four SAPs to reside.

“Clinton’s allies in the State Department have perpetrated the myth that the 2,000 emails were recently upgraded to reflect their secret contents. That is untrue. The emails possess secret status by virtue of their contents, not because of any markings on them. Clinton had a legal obligation to recognize state secrets when she saw them, no matter their markings or non-markings. On her first day on the job, she swore under oath that she recognized and understood that legal obligation and she promised to comply with it. She did not comply.”

Then, this morning, on FoxNews the judge went further in explaining how the investigation has now reached an extremely serious phase. That’s because the Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Bill’s wife’s private email server. That raises the level to a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official. 

Mr. Pagliano, worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009. 

According to Judge Napolitano, what needs to be understood by the public is that, before immunity can be granted to a witness a Grand Jury must be impaneled. And that means the case has become far more serious whereas, due to costs, time involved and personnel required for review at that level, there must be evidence warranting the significant investment to be made.  

As a result, the Judge feels that without knowing specifically who at this early stage, its a foregone conclusion that someone will certainly be indicted. And unless he commits perjury when testifying, it won’t be Mr. Pagliano, because he’s now been granted immunity. Which means it’s certainly someone further up the chain, which ends with Bill’s wife. 

Leading to 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