For years, it has been the republicans who laid claim that their party stood for family values, ethics, integrity, with a major focus on U.S. national security issues. What a difference, an election season can make.
The republican Utah U.S. Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Jason Chaffetz is the perfect example of what I am talking about in pointing out a republican party’s member acting counter to what he purports to represent. Earlier in the month of October 2016, Representative Chaffetz stated publicly that he could not in good conscience endorse or vote for Donald Trump after hearing him refer to women in lewd and vulgar terms on a publicly released video. In the last week of October, he is now admitting that he is voting for Donald Trump. What has happened to his and many of his fellow republicans’ ethics and integrity? Yet, these are the same folks who are promising multiple future investigations into Hillary Clinton’s lack of integrity and ethics.
As for me, I am sick and tired to continuous investigations so that one political party can score “gotcha points.” I strongly prefer that my tax monies go towards making our government work effectively for all Americans and not endless witch hunts which drags our country into the dirt.
According to the last Real Clear Politics survey numbers the one group with lower favorability numbers than either Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is the U,S. congress. The U.S. deliberative body has a favorability rating at about 24%. The American peoples are frustrated with all this bickering without results.
David Weigel reports about Mr. Chaffetz’s plans for future hearings in his 10/26/16 Washington Post article, “House Republicans are already preparing for ‘years’ of investigations of Clinton.” Here are some excerpts:
“Jason Chaffetz, the Utah congressman wrapping up his first term atop the powerful House Oversight Committee, unendorsed Donald Trump weeks ago. That freed him up to prepare for something else: spending years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton.”
“It’s a target-rich environment,” the Republican said in an interview in Salt Lake City’s suburbs. “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”
“In a tweet Wednesday night, Chaffetz reaffirmed his distaste for Clinton and his refusal to endorse Trump — but reversed his plans not to vote for him.”
“If Republicans retain control of the House, something that GOP-friendly maps make likely, Clinton will become the first president since George H.W. Bush to immediately face a House Oversight Committee controlled by the opposition party. (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama lost Congress later in their presidencies.)”
Robert Kagan writes about how the republicans have turned a blind eye to Mr. Trump’s statements that are counter to U.S. national security in his 10/11/16 Washington Post article, “Why we shouldn’t forgive the Republicans who sold their souls:” The following are some excerpts:
“After years of railing against the Obama administration’s “reset,” the leading Republican spokesmen on this issue said little and did nothing when their own nominee spoke admiringly of Russian President Vladimir Putin and when his closest advisers were discovered to be intimately connected to the Kremlin and found to be lobbyists for Putin’s puppets in Ukraine or Gazprom’s pipeline plans.”
” They were silent when Trump went so far as to urge the Russian intelligence services to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. These are the political leaders who are supposed to stand up to the world’s real strongmen in Moscow and Beijing. Yet they did not stand up to this bullying would-be authoritarian when all he could do was steal away a few of their voters. They would not risk five points in their primary campaigns to stop this man from becoming commander in chief. They were willing to damage U.S. national interests, to avoid a close race. These are the men and women to whom we should entrust the nation’s welfare?”
“Is the other party any better? On national-security issues, probably not, but unlike in the past, one can only say, “probably.” Given the Republican track record, and not only in this election but in recent years — on Syria, for instance, where leading presidential hopefuls opposed the use of force at a critical moment; or on defense spending, where Republican majorities in both houses have allowed the sequester to stand — the contrast is not as clear as it once was.”
“And as it happens, the present Democratic candidate is as solid on matters of national security as almost any Republican, and infinitely more so than the present Republican nominee — which is one reason so many Republican national-security officials have either come out against Trump or have outright endorsed Clinton.”
“Of former top Republican officials, only Dick Cheney and a handful of others have betrayed whatever principles they once claimed to have and destroyed what remained of their reputations for integrity. And whatever one may think of the relative merits of the two parties, at least this much can be said: In this election cycle, it has been the Republicans, not their opponents, who have worked, and are still working, to hand the country over to someone who they know in their hearts would be a disaster for the nation’s security.”
“Republicans are no doubt hoping that all will be forgiven and forgotten once the election is over. They can start fresh, begin their next round of attacks, rally the faithful, get ready for the next campaign, treat the whole thing as a bad dream. And perhaps they are right to be cynical, to rely on voters’ short memories.”
” But perhaps, too, there may be some justice in the world. Maybe some voters will remember. Maybe when those who caved to Trump in 2016 begin their campaigns for 2020, some voters will recall that at a moment of national crisis, those politicians promising strong leadership were too weak, too obsessed with winning elections, too afraid of Trump’s angry faithful to have the steady moral compass, the calmness under fire, the vision in the fog of battle that real leadership demands.”
” And maybe voters at that point will look away from those who self-servingly tried to foist Trump on the nation and will turn instead to the handful of Republican officeholders who had the courage of their convictions and tried to stop him from the beginning. Maybe there will be enough voters willing to reward that kind of genuine political courage, enough to make a difference.”
FINAL NOTE: As for the 2016 October Surprise, the FBI Director James Comey has publicly announced that the FBI have newly discovered emails which could be pertinent to the past Hillary Clinton email handling case of classified material while she was secretary of state. The FBI will need to review thousands of these emails. The LA Times has reported that the emails in question probably do not involve Mrs. Clinton’s participation. The Wall Street Journal claims the opposite. Director Comey has admitted that as of 10/31/16, he does not know what are in the emails but he has not said the same of his agents who have had access to Anthony Weiner’s laptop for about 5 weeks but without a warrant. Mrs. Clinton has publically requested that he provide sufficient clarifying information.
A non partisan, Law Professor Richard Painter who has voted mostly republican but is voting for HRC this year has filed a complaint against the FBI and its Director with the Office of Special Counsel , which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. Professor Painter worked as the chief White HOUSE ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush. He is alleging that the FBI Director James Comey abused his power by going public so close to an election without also delivering sufficient data, while acting counter to FBI guidelines and against the strong objections of the DOJ.
NOTE: This blog was last updated on 10/31/16.