Gingrich’s Reflexive Criticism Will Cost Him The V.P. Slot on Trump’s Ticket

ELDER PATRIOT – Many of us were skeptical of Newt Gingrich’s support of Donald Trump from the beginning.  He is, after all, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations an organization that has become a repository of Globalist thinking that is diametrically at odds with Trump’s commitment to put “America First.”

Nevertheless, most Trump supporters were happy to have Newt’s support since he was the architect of “The Contract With America” and led the House of Representatives to give us our last balanced budget.  Because of this he had become a revered elder statesman of the Republican Party.

In Gingrich, Trump saw a man who knew how to navigate the ship of state through the muddy and often turbulent waters of congress.  With Paul Ryan representing a significant obstacle to Trump’s legislative agenda, Gingrich’s expertise, experience, and stature would be of great value to Trump.

For this reason he was on Trump’s short list to serve as his V.P.

Gingrich eliminated himself from consideration yesterday.  When Trump publicly raised questions about the ability for Judge Gonzalo Curiel to be unbiased in the Trump University lawsuit that he was presiding over, Gingrich immediately and publicly castigated Trump’s highlighting of the judge’s Mexican heritage labeling it “inexcusable.” 

Gingrich apparently believes members of the court should be unassailable no matter their behavior on the bench.

Really Newt?  Are not a person’s religious, racial and ethnic roots formative in influencing how they will view the facts of a case?

Obama appointee Sonia Sotomayor confirmed as much when she addressed an audience at Berkley reasoning that, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Judge Curiel’s ruling in Trump’s case appeared one-sided in favor of the plaintiffs, justifying at least a look into the judge’s resume:

  1. Judge Curiel is an Obama appointee.
  2. He is a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego dedicated to giving legal support to pro-illegal immigrants and the organizations that support them.
  3. Judge Curiel appointed the law firm Robbins Geller to represent one of the plaintiffs in the case.  The firm of Robbins Geller had previously paid the Clintons $450,000 for two speeches.

Alone, none of these points is sufficient to warrant the judge’s recusal.  Taken together a picture emerges of a man who wears his prejudices on his sleeve.  And, considering his rulings in this case, it becomes apparent that the judge has opened the door wide to those who would call this a political witch-hunt.

So what was Newt’s complaint?  He said that Trump should not have gone after the judge publicly.  But the judge had already politicized the case against Trump when, on the Friday before Memorial Day, he released the entirety of the plaintiff’s allegations calling Trump University a scam.

In the midst of a heated presidential campaign should not the judge have refrained from making public private pleadings that might prejudice the public’s view?  Instead he chose to insert poison into the debate, to whatever extent he could.  With San Diego’s mayor taking a hands off approach to the violence being perpetrated by Mexican protestors, Curiel thought it wise to pour gasoline on the fire.

True to his record, Trump defended himself by raising what appears to be legitimate questions about his attacker.  Trump’s broad appeal among the voters is partly because he defends himself quickly and in a forthright manner.  He does not shrink from confrontation like past Republican failures John McCain and Mitt Romney did when attacked.  Precisely because of this tactic Trump has made it very difficult for previous attacks to stick to him.

That Gingrich reacted publicly in the same manner that he is now chastising Trump for having done is not just hypocritical but it also does not speak well for Newt’s understanding of the Trump appeal.

More significantly it calls into question whether Newt’s allegiance would be to Trump or to the Global Oligarchy.

This may be for the best.  A Newt presidency would be infinitely more acceptable to the Global Oligarchs than Trump promises to be which raises the question of just how far they would allow Trump to go before using whatever means necessary to install Newt as president.

Expect this to be the first of many establishment “converts” to Trump that come forward to stab him in the back as the elites find success in cutting backroom deals with them in their desperate attempt to derail his candidacy.