BloggeRhythms

Scanning headlines this morning, one on FoxNews.com read: “Trump says he's filled convention speaker spots; tries to reverse slide, seize on Clinton's tough week”

That was remindful of a point made here on Thursday, where Fox’s Dana Blanton wrote about poor poll results for Trump while the complete reverse was true.

And now, while Fox bemoans about Trump's “slide,” the Herald Staff wrote @bostonherald.com: “It’s been more than a month since Donald Trump was a winner in general-election polls. That all changed yesterday. 

“A Rasmussen Reports “White House Watch” survey put the presumptive GOP presidential nominee ahead of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, 43-39 percent. 

“It’s his “highest level” yet in the Rasmussen rolling watch.”

In this case, while electioneering isn’t the job of the press, nor is promoting favoritism, you’d think that the management at Fox News, of all places, would prevent their contributors from misleading the voting public about Trump. Regardless of any negative feelings toward him, or anyone else.  

On another issue, Michael Goodwin @nypost.com, has once again produced an article wherein he’s included some very helpful and insightful information perhaps unknown in detail to the general public.

Writing about the now embarrassed Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, Mr. Goodwin relates:

“Yet her lifetime of good work and the hope for a fresh start at Justice are now overshadowed. She acknowledges the meeting with Bill Clinton was a mistake, and pledged to accept the recommendation of FBI agents and career prosecutors on whether Hillary should face charges. 

“That’s not enough, not nearly enough, given the circumstances and stakes.” 

And then, Mr. Goodwin provides us with relevant history that crystallizes the premise that her meeting with Bill Clinton was highly likely not a chance occurrence, as follows: 

“While Lynch offers no explanation as to why in the world she agreed to the 30-minute meeting on a plane in Phoenix, perhaps she felt she owed the former president something. Remember, he first nominated her to be the US attorney in Brooklyn in 1999, a promotion that changed her life. 

“After his presidency, she went to a top private law firm, and became a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Bill Clinton had been very, very good to her, and without his boost, she probably wouldn’t even have been a candidate to replace Holder. 

“And now her patron wanted a private meeting. Both had to know it was wrong, but he had nothing to lose and didn’t care about her reputation or the Justice Department’s.” 

Opining that her position and reputation were felt to be ”her responsibility” by Clinton, Mr. Goodwin believes, “it doesn’t really matter if they didn’t discuss the case. Just his being there was reminder enough that she owes him.”

“Lynch also had to know that an FBI agent who socialized with the spouse of a suspect in a criminal case probably would be investigated and fired. Yet she agreed to the meeting anyway. 

“There was also FBI Director James Comey’s reputation as an independent straight shooter to provide some reassurance that the case would be handled on the merits. 

“Now Lynch has broken that fragile confidence, and the need for a special prosecutor is obvious.” 

And then, in his conclusion, Mr. Goodwin sums up both Clinton’s despicable history in a concise, perfectly stated paragraph: “The explosive result shows the Clintons haven’t lost their touch for leaving destruction and chaos in their wake. The remarkable events also serve as a clear reminder that while the Clintons enriched themselves over the years, they were helping to bankrupt the public trust in its government and institutions. And they won’t stop until they’re stopped.” 

Which leads right into today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

Doing some research this morning led to an article in which Arkansas representative, Tom Cotton, recapped historical performance by Bill Clinton’s wife that most often gets overshadowed by focus on her selfishness, illicit activity and abuses of power. 

However, on a purely professional level, her incompetence to date should be a disqualifier on its own. 

Representative Cotton, is “an Army veteran and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, [and] has been a sharp critic of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy. "She has been responsible for many of the worst decisions of the Obama administration," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press," yesterday. 

Continuing his case against Bill’s wife he said: “She was literally present when we pressed the reset button with Russia just a few months after Russia had invaded Georgia. In 2011, when our commanders said they needed more troops in Iraq and when every Iraqi leader wanted a new agreement to keep those troops there, she couldn't achieve that even though she was Secretary of State. And she was the strongest advocate inside the Obama administration for the Libyan misadventure which has now led to the strongest ISIS cell around the world." 

So, aside from her life-long highly questionable personal behavior, she has no professional capabilities either. Which certainly calls for asking the ongoing question once again: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are  you guys reading this?   

That’s it for today folks. 

     

Adios