Many months ago I was discussing with a friend the unlikely success of Donald Trump’s and Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential runs. Neither appeared likely to be even close to becoming his respective party’s nominee out of the conventions.
At the time however, I commented that if either Donald Trump or Senator Sanders would be his respective party’s nominee in the 2016 presidential election, my hope was that the other would also be his own party’s nominee. Goofy as that sounds, I was serious.
My rationale was that if either Trump or Sanders was destined to be elected and inaugurated President of the United States, it would force our bicameral Congress to sober up, set aside partisan differences, and take seriously for a change its duties to the country. That would include using all of its various Constitutionally enumerated powers to minimize the damage either President Trump or President Sanders could do if unchecked. That was precisely what the framers of the Constitution sought in creating three co-equal branches of government.
The election will be Trump versus Clinton rather than Trump versus Sanders. With valid reasons, many US citizens dread the anticipated consequences of either Trump or Clinton being inaugurated on January 20, 2017. Whichever nominee is inaugurated, the co-equal remedy will need to be administered liberally in adult strength.
Several preceding OpenCdA posts explained my opinion that Hillary Clinton is unsuitable to hold public office at any level of government again. Aside from demonstrating the bungling failure of the Obama White House and State Department Libyan policies and the military’s failed operational support readiness (not so FAST), the complete Report of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi also uncovered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
The Benghazi report and the civil lawsuit by Judicial Watch revealed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was much more than ‘extremely careless’ in using her private email server to communicate highly sensitive classified and unclassified national security information. That was bad enough, but beyond that is credible evidence she and members of her staff used her private email server to handle sensitive communications associated with selling preferential access to Secretary of State Clinton in return for large monetary donations to the Clinton Family Foundation.
Just as there was sufficient credible evidence to charge her with crimes against the national security, there is now credible evidence to investigate her for bribery under 18 USC § 201. It appears that at least one credible news medium, the Colorado Springs Gazette, finally acknowledges that the Clintons may have more than passing familiarity with the term ‘pay-to-play.’
The Clinton greed machine in conjunction with her egregiously dangerous and callous disregard for the security of national security information make her an exceptionally grave threat to the national security. Hillary Clinton has betrayed her country and has demonstrated repeatedly she is unsuitable to hold any public office. Her loyalty, integrity, discretion, morals, and character are not above reproach. She should never be granted access to national security information.
And then there’s Donald Trump.
For the sake of discussion, assume that almost everything credibly derogatory you’ve heard and read about Trump is factual. Then go beyond believing just the credible derogatory information. Throw in the unsubstantiated speculation and rumor the print and broadcast skews media have said about him.
I would still rather see Donald Trump inaugurated as President.
My preference is based on the hope that the reprobates in Congress would muster the integrity and courage to diligently exercise their Constitutionally enumerated powers as officials in arguably the most equal of the three co-equal branches of government.
I freely admit that for the past eight years there has been nothing in the institutional performance of Congress which would warrant that hope.
For the past nearly eight years, Congress has timidly shirked exercising its powers in the best interests of the United States. Members individually feared being called racists if they dared trying to perform their elected duties by challenging the harmful decisions of the first African-American President of the United States. They also feared bad press from the skews media who unquestioningly accept as factual practically every word uttered by the White House whitewash machine. Congress’s motto has been the idiom ‘Go along to get along.’
Recall that on January 21, 2009, the US Senate voted 94-2-2 to confirm Hillary Clinton to be the Secretary of State. Only two Republican Senators (Jim Demint and David Vitter) voted to reject her nomination. The 39 Republican Senators (including Idaho’s own Senators Crapo and Risch), 53 Democrats, and 2 Independents who voted to confirm her share the blame for elevating her to a Cabinet-level position which she and her husband could exploit for personal gain. ‘Go along to get along.’
Then along came Republican candidate and ultimate nominee, Donald Trump who made rude and obnoxious noises promising to generate a 9.0 political earthquake in the Congressional comfort zone at Happyland-on-the-Hill. The thought of a President who might even consider forcing Congressmembers to subordinate their own personal interests to the interests of preserving the republic was almost more than some of them could comprehend.
Just as Congress feared the social and political blacklash if they exercised their legislative authority over any of the first African-American President’s harebrained schemes, it seems even more likely they would hide trembling in their desk kneeholes rather than risk the wrath of the first woman President, Crazy Hillary, her Chief of Sleaze Slick Willy, and the foreign despots and corrupt corporations who pour money into the Clinton Family Foundation to buy face time.
Ultimately the only way for our ‘Go along to get along’ Congress to get the Clinton money monkey off its institutional back is to hope the voters elect Trump.
Regardless of political party affiliation, all members of Congress are much more likely to swallow the co-equal remedy to rein in President Trump than President Clinton. Trump has very few friends and fewer loyalists in Congress. They owe him nothing, so they are institutionally more likely to unite and resist seriously screwball Trump administration initiatives. In the long run, that benefits the country.