Thursday, June 23, 2016

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday was huge for Trump, some believing that the speech he delivered forms the basis for a powerful campaign ahead. Provided he can maintain the advantage and momentum gained. 

One such influential observer was Rush who said on his show: “Well, I have to tell you, my email is overflowing with people calling Trump's speech a home run.  People are saying, "Finally! It's about time somebody started telling the truth about Hillary Clinton, and it's not you.  Finally somebody that's an official Republican starts telling us what we already know!" People are jazzed by this, according to my email and other feedback that I'm getting. We've got all the audio sound bites coming. Of course, I, as a powerful, influential member of the media, had a transcript of the speech before it was given.” 

Rush believes that the major gain stems from Trump’s neither being part of the Republican “establishment,” nor hamstrung by the relationships and protocols of traditional party representatives. Which means he can take the gloves off when attacking Bill Clinton’s wife.  
 
Rush put it this way: “It happens it was a speech given on the prompter today down at SoHo, one of Trump's hotels that he owns.  So Trump basically said things about Hillary Clinton that you just don't hear Republicans saying.  You've heard them before.  You've heard them on this program, of course.  You've probably heard similar things that Trump said in other areas.  But you just do not hear Mitt Romney say this, for example.  You wouldn't hear the Bush family talk this way about Hillary.  You wouldn't. You just wouldn't hear it.  

“You wouldn't hear fellow establishment types talk about this, 'cause it's too close to home for all of them.  But Trump can say this stuff as an outsider. He can say this stuff as a nonmember of the elite or the establishment, and it's gonna be interesting to see, because while everything Trump said about Hillary has been said before by people -- and, of course, we have the Peter Schweizer book, Clinton Cash, which Trump quoted from extensively.  You don't see things like that happen, either.” 

Now, naturally, one would expect a Conservative icon such as Rush to attempt to present the best picture possible of any Republican candidate. And even more so considering his long-held contempt and hatred for both Clinton’s, as far back as can be remembered. However, Rush’s assessment of Trump’s significant gain was confirmed by none other than national political correspondent for left-leaning National Public Radio, Mara Liasson.  
   
According to Joel B. Pollak @breitbart.com: “[Trump] delivered a 41-minute address from his skyscraper in New York, attacking his Democratic rival for corrupt deals while at the State Department, and responding to her own sharp attack on his economic policies the day before. 

“Liasson writes that while the Clinton campaign was already disputing the particulars of Trump’s argument, he had made the case against Clinton in a way Republicans have been unable to do, and which the media have refused to allow. In so doing, she says, he may have helped unify the Republican Party behind his candidacy, while setting aside two weeks of missteps: 

“This speech should quiet some of the angst inside Republican circles about the quality of the campaign Trump is running (or not running). Opposition to the Clintons is one of the strongest strands in the GOP’s DNA — and now that decades-long animus seems to have found a focused champion in Donald Trump. 

“It’s the speech Republicans have been itching to hear, in a crystallized way, since the 1990s. Trump gave them exactly what they wanted and likely quelled some fears about his candidacy. They might not be totally behind him, but Republicans are virulently opposed to her.” 

Thus, a major steps been taken toward party unity which the “establishment types” can now choose to support or ignore. However, whatever path those elders decide to follow, Trump’s now put major responsibility for the results in November’s presidential election squarely on their shoulders, where it belongs.   

At the same time, according to FoxNews.com: “Rebellious Democrats shut down the House's legislative work on Wednesday, staging a sit-in on the House floor and refusing to leave until they secured a vote on gun control measures before lawmakers' weeklong break. 

“Exasperated Republicans were forced to recess while cutting off cameras that showed the protest. But in an unprecedented step, C-SPAN used live video feeds from one lawmaker's Periscope account and another's Facebook page to transmit words and images from the House chamber. 

“More than 200 Democrats led by Georgia Rep. John Lewis demanded a vote on measures to expand background checks and block gun purchases by some suspected terrorists in the aftermath of last week's massacre in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 people in a gay nightclub.”

While those “rebellious” Democrats were on the floor of the House, a Facebook friend was posting the following:

image

Which leads to the obvious question of what gets banned next, and clearly confirms it’s the maniacal ideology that needs to be stopped, not the method employed to inflict it.   

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

In another example confirming the potential effectiveness of Trump’s making Clinton history a major factor in his campaign, Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne @FoxNews.com, write today about another looming problem for Bill's wife. 

“Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano invoked the Fifth more than 125 times during a 90-minute, closed-door deposition Wednesday with the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, a source with the group told Fox News.

“He was deposed as part of Judicial Watch's lawsuit seeking Clinton emails and other records. A federal judge granted discovery, in turn allowing the depositions, which is highly unusual in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The judge cited "reasonable suspicion" Clinton and her aides were trying to avoid federal records law.”

“The next Clinton aide to testify is Huma Abedin. In an earlier deposition, lawyers for senior Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, during a nearly five-hour deposition in Washington, repeatedly objected to questions about Pagliano’s role in setting up the former secretary of state’s private server. 

“According to a transcript of that deposition which Judicial Watch released, Mills attorney Beth Wilkinson – as well as Obama administration lawyers – objected to the line of questioning about Pagliano.  

“I'm going to instruct her not to answer. It's a legal question,” Wilkinson responded, when asked by Judicial Watch whether Pagliano was an “agent of the Clintons” when the server was set up.” 

Thus, it seems that the invoking of Constitutional protection while testifying by one aide, coupled with an attorney’s continued objections to another witnesses’ replying on the same subject, indicates the likelihood of wrongdoing of some kind. Which certainly appears to be a future source of ammunition for Trump’s arsenal aimed at Clinton’s continuing illegalities and untruthfulness, a steadily growing target.  

It also reinforces the continuing question: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?      

That’s it for today folks.       
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment