The Clintons? That’s Not Who We Are!
It has been said that Impeachment is a political act, not a legal act. In terms of the presidency, the process is managed solely by the legislative branch, the congress, our most politicized body. In the same manner, any legal action taken against Hillary Clinton must be managed as a political act in order to go forward.
The Department of Justice under Jeff Sessions may be inching toward taking legal actions against Hillary Clinton, but must proceed carefully to prevent the Democrat Party and Media allies from going nuclear with outrage, indignation, cries of payback and retribution against adversaries, etc. In fact, the Democrats and media allies could launch a preventive strike if the DOJ does anything in public that signals intent to take action. In both cases, the merits of a criminal indictment will be lost in the fog of battle.
Instead, the DOJ strategy appears to be one of incremental release from multiple sources of facts and information of potential wrongdoing regarding Uranium One, Fusion GPS, false Russian dossier paid for by Clinton team and DNC, donations of funds to the Clinton Foundation and more, building a “basket of offenses” that cannot be ignored. The strategy, if this premise is correct, is designed to carefully build the case for wrongdoing in the public domain. When public opinion reaches critical mass, with a majority consensus that actions must be taken, the public will support specific charges if such is warranted. Failure to build public consensus has a high risk of further division of our country along multiple fault-lines.
The Democrat Party Strategy(?)
The Democrat Party today fully appreciates the crisis it faces with the legal jeopardy of Hillary and Bill Clinton. The Party’s two leading standard bearers since the early 1990’s face potential criminal charges, and no matter what the outcome, the party could be damaged. The Party has two options for dealing with the Clintons:
One: Use the Sexual Misconduct Climate to Advantage
We are all familiar with the escapades of William Jefferson Clinton and his decades’ long record of sexual predation. Individuals such as Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and more went public with their allegations of being victimized by Slick Willy, plus Juanita Broaddrick with her credible charge of rape.
Given the climate of today, with charges of sexual misconduct by people (mainly men) in power taking advantage of the less powerful, we also seem to be forced to revisit the Bill Clinton conduct once again. A number of articles have appeared that recap his behavior and the Democrat Party wall to wall protection of the Clinton Presidency.
But this public topic offers an opportunity for the Democrat Party to craft a strategy to lay the foundation for a separation from the Clintons. Consider some opening gambits:
- Book written by long-term party insider and former DNC (Dem National Committee) chair Donna Brazile, titled “Hacked” is the first public commentary on the Clintons from someone inside the party hierarchy. The book documents the takeover of the 2016 campaign run by the DNC by the Clinton team as well as the theft of the election versus Sanders. The book creates the first formal separation of the party from the Clintons.
- Senator Gillbrand (D-NY) stated that, by today’s standards, Bill Clinton should have resigned in 1990’s. Party functionaries are mute, while Clintonites whine and fire back.
- Some Media types, awash in moral preening, are now lamenting their support for WJC in the 1990’s, in effect recanting their testimony of support in that era to get on the right side of the issues today.
In coming weeks, more Democrats may come forward with comments about sexual misconduct. Between now and end of year, prior to any actions by the DOJ, the Democrat Party could take steps to separate from the Clinton team, with statements that portray the new party leadership that excludes the Clintons, set forth new policy goals that reject Clintonism, and more.
After laying the groundwork, the Party can issue a formal statement that condemns Bill’s conduct of the 1990’s, which is a possibility if the party leadership sees mortal legal peril imminent for Hillary and/or Bill Clinton. The party can leverage the current sexual misconduct environment to its advantage and separate from the Clintons with minimal damage to the party. The party faces one serious downside risk, the reaction of the party base to this humiliating end of the Clinton reign. Or:
Two: Play It Out!
The Democrats know that any criminal charges brought against either Bill or Hillary or both will be won or lost in the public square. Democrats own the public square, with dominance and control over mainstream media, college campus opinion, capacity to create demonstrations and chaos in the streets, create chaos in state and local government, and more. When it comes to public opinion, the Democrat Party has home field advantage.
If the Party chooses to continue the connection with the Clintons in coming months, it will do so without knowing what price it will pay in terms of further erosion of power, loss of voter appeal, damage to a party image already cast as power lust, and more.
The larger question is whether the Democrat Party will commit to all out support for the Clintons (Bill and /or Hillary) when the call to battle comes. Is there a price to be paid for enabling and abetting criminality? Will the public extract it?
Conclusion:
We cannot know the inner workings of the Democrat Party to predict which course of action the Party will elect to pursue. Of the two options, it seems that the path forward that has less risk is for the party is to sever its ties to the Clintons. If the Party does so, in coming months, when faced with charges against the Clintons, Dems can say: Bribery? Corruption? Scandal? That’s not who we are!
Bill Broderick, Kane County Patriots
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.