Trump’s vow to end mutual absolution between parties threatens Democrats

trump 5

Following the FBI’s resurrection of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail affair, the Democratic leadership, suddenly, less than a week before the presidential election, faces the previously almost inconceivable possibility of a Trump victory and, therefore, of a Trump presidency. This appears particularly ironic because during the Republican primaries, the Clinton team had literally prayed for the opportunity to run against Trump. Since they considered Trump the weakest Republican opponent, they, indeed, actively encouraged their media minions to favor Trump’s bid for the Republican nomination.

But once he won, something rather unexpected happened: True to his claim of being a political outsider, Trump broke with an unwritten rule that Republicans and Democrats historically had abided by. Under that understanding, administrations of both parties basically guaranteed implied amnesties for legal breaches to outgoing administrations. The best recent example for this implied agreement was the failure of the Bush Junior administration to pursue any of a number of potential criminal claims against members of the Clinton administration. In other words, any administration that made it through its term without being indicted, was basically assured of no further legal consequences.

The knowledge that one just had to survive till the end of an administration, has been at the core of quantitative and qualitative increases in government corruption this country has witnessed in recent decades, and nobody has been better in “surviving” than the last two Democratic administrations of Presidents Clinton and Obama.

It should not surprise that the years of the two Obama administrations, initiated with the promise of being the “most transparent ever,” turned out to be the least transparent ever (at least since the Nixon administration), and certainly the most corrupt. Combining the intimidating Chicago school of political corruption (which trained Obama) with the finesse of survival, developed to by the Democrats under the two prior Clinton administrations, resulted in the most egregious chain of corruption scandals the country has ever witnessed, from “Fast and Furious” to the IRS scandal, outright bribery to pass Obamacare, the Veterans Administration Scandal, corruption of State and Defense Departments in the Benghazi scandal, and unprecedented corruption of State Department and Justice in Hillary’s e-mail scandal. Never before has the Justice Department been as politicized as under Holder and, now, Loretta Lynch (Bill Clinton’s secrete date at an airport tarmac in Arizona).

Even the President, usually protected by multiple layers of deniability, has been implicated in repeatedly lying to the public in reference to Obamacare, the Benghazi affair and in his knowledge about Hillary’s e-mail server. How far the dirt in this White House reaches toward the skies was recently revealed when Bob Creamer, Founder of Democratic Partners, was revealed to the public by Project Veritas Action as a “dirty trickster” for the Democratic Party. Most remarkable about the whole story was, however, that the media almost unreported the fact that he had visited the White House over 350-times during both Obama administrations, – more frequently, indeed, than likely any other person in the country who was not employed at the White House. He, quite obviously, received his instruction directly out of the White House!

In no administration in recent memory have government employees without any consequences taken their Fifth Amendment rights as often as under Obama. After all, they had just to delay the legal process until the end of the administration, and all would be forgotten.

And then Trump in the second debate with Hillary Clinton, suddenly, made it clear that he had no intention of continuing this policy of mutual absolution between the two parties, should he be elected president. When he announced that he would ask his Attorney General to immediately appoint a special prosecutor to pursue “the truth” in regard to Hillary’s e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation, the Democratic leadership, suddenly, understood that circumstances had changed and that, should Trump win the presidency, they all may be subject to prosecution for illegal activities during the two Obama administrations. This, of course, made a Clinton win appear even that more urgent!

That six days before the election Trump has in national opinion polls pulled even with Clinton, therefore, set off alarm bells among the Democratic elites. The election, suddenly, has become an existential fight for survival, far exceeding the traditional conflict for power and the spoils of power.

We, therefore, can expect Clintonians and Democratic party, in cahoots with a majority of major media, in the last few days before the election to initiate a political bloodbath in attempts to derail Donald Trump. The election no longer is about who gains or retains the privileges of power but, as Trump stated, who goes to jail.

The Canary

 

5 thoughts on “Trump’s vow to end mutual absolution between parties threatens Democrats

  1. I hope that, if elected, Trump actually does something about Clinton’s criminality rather than just talk about it. I remember Hillary wearing her orange & her black & white horizontally-striped blouses during the times that her corruption was being talked about by the media — that was her way of thumbing her nose at those who believe she committed criminal acts. HILLARY FOR PRISON!

  2. Why is the GOPe.stablishment criticizing Trump rather than explaining what is correct about Trump’s statements?

    I conclude that the almost all of the GOP is a loose collection of individual politicians who are marketing themselves as an opposition party, but in fact are a division of the UniParty. They expect to be reelected as mild Progressives rather than take and explain actual conservative positions and votes.

    The GOPe says enough to send emails to supporters, but arranges to be ineffective in practice. There are no GOPe education efforts to inform the public between elections, and it is too late to do this during elections. They then claim that they have to be Progressive-Light in order to keep their seats, which is cynically true. The failure happens between elections during periods of no outreach.

    The Democrats/Progressives are always pushing their agenda, emotional arguments, and false statistics without official opposition. For example, I have never heard any important Republican talk about the important defensive use of guns, reported as more than 2 million per year.

  3. This is the explanation for why each party pardons the other when there is a change of power. They are the Uniparty, and are not going to punish criminality among themselves. Whatever fights occur are about dividing up the spoils. A few people of importance, now and then, are punished to keep up the appearance of the rule of law to pacify half the populace. The other half doesn’t care about anything but their subsidies.

    The GOPe is a shield for the Progressives, not an opposition. Driving cars adds to life and has a cost in lives. Freedom adds to life and has a cost in lives. There is no official voice of power advocating for freedom, so it is logical and natural to assume that there is no good argument for the costs of freedom. The promise of free stuff wins out, and free stuff requires limits on freedom and eventually totalitarianism.

  4. Well, it is and it isn’t. Let me draw an analogy in a discursive paragraph.

    Many then and since blame the WWII “unconditional surrender” position for the war dragging on. But historians know from Axis archives and intercepts that the decision-makers did not believe it, and expected a conditional peace, right to the end. (Hitler committed suicide anyway, expecting Mussoliniesque sequelae.)

    Trump’s vow is doubtful, because (1) he is a longtime friend and corruption client of the Clintons and other Democrats, (2) his promises are never reliable, and (3) the his winning prob. is now (11/5/2016) at best 20%. Moreover, even if Trump should win and seem likely to stick to his word, if Obama’s last-day pardons are anything like (Bill) Clinton’s, the problem takes care of itself. So Democrats need not panic by any means.

    On the other hand, there is no question that the residual risk is much higher than in an ordinary election.

Leave a Reply