Election 2016: Texas Elector gone Wild
By James Baxley
Chris Suprun, the Republican Texas elector who, against the will of the Texas voters, refuses to cast his vote for the man Texas voters have decided to trust as their President, Donald Trump. Suprun should follow fellow Texan elector Art Sisneros, who has already resigned from the state’s Electoral College delegation on grounds that Trump does not meet his religious and moral principles.
Suprun writes in his New York Timesop-ed piece entitled “Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump,” “Mr. Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief” . . . “During the campaign Mr. Trump even said Russia should hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. This encouragement of an illegal act has troubled many members of Congress and troubles me” [emphasis added].
RELATED: Election 2016: Texas Elector Art Sisneros Resigns
Speaking of illegal acts: a faithless elector runs the risk of party censure and political retaliation as well as potential legal penalties in some states. Although these penalties have never been enforced, twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, Instead of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, such as Michigan and Minnesota, specify the faithless elector’s vote is void.
Trump may lack foreign policy experience, but a good president would surround himself with people who are experts in specific fields and can guide the president. But what bothers me is Suprun’s comment “This encouragement of an illegal act . . . troubles me.” Doesn’t Suprun know that Trump would still be elected President even if enough electors follows his lead and let’s say these electors vote for Kaisch.
The House of Representatives will then have the say in who will become the President. Since the House is majority Republican Trump would still be elected as the next President. But let’s say Clinton gets elected by the House, doesn’t her past such as “Travelgate,” her commodities trading, her influence over her husband’s controversial late-term pardons, her email server, and Benghazi to name a few trouble you?
The New York Times published a story in the March of 1994 issue on Clinton’s “commodity trades from 1978 and 1979.” She turned an initial investment of $1,000 into nearly $100,000.
It was reported in March 2015, that Clinton had been using a private server as secretary of State. Initially said there were no classified information on her server, though a government review later determined some of the emails contained information retroactively marked classified. Clinton’s email debacle dragged on throughout her presidential campaign and the reopening of the case in the final weeks is thought to be (falsely by her and most of the DNC) why she lost.
In Suprun’s op-ed, he points out that “Mr. Trump does not understand that the Constitution expressly forbids a president to receive payments or gifts from foreign governments.” It appears that Mr. Suprun is so uninformed that he apparently hasn’t heard about the controversies surrounding the Clinton Foundation.
ALSO READ: Faithless Elector, 9/11, and Stolen Valor
In a response to a question from Chris Wallace about possible conflicts of interest and impropriety of the Clinton Foundation, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton vigorously defended the Clinton Foundation’s work. “I’m thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation, because it is a world-renowned charity and I am so proud of the work that it does.”
The Clinton Foundation took donations from foreign governments such as Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman which would amount to between $19.3 million and $55.7 million.
Donations in turn influenced Clinton’s decision making while serving as secretary of state. In 2008, Saudi Arabia donated around $10 million to $25 million, along with an additional $1 million to $5 million donation from the “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” (cofounded by a Saudi prince). Some donations came as recently as 2014 when Clinton prepared her run for the presidency.
Clinton arranged for her foundation to host a meeting in Morocco on behalf of a Moroccan state-owned mining company in return for a $12 million donation from King Mohammed VI of Morocco.
Canadian businessman and billionaire mining magnate Frank Giustra funneled millions of dollars to the foundation while Clinton was secretary of state.
In 2005, Bill Clinton and Giustra visited Kazakhstan. Giustra’s goal was to buy uranium mines in Kazakhstan. He and Bill met with leaders of the Kazakhstan government and got major mining concessions approved by the Kazakhstan government. The Clintons received a $31 million donation to their Foundation from Giustra, along with a pledge to donate $100 million more.
The historic documents that lay out the principles behind the Electoral College system, the Federalist Papers describes what each elector should look for when casting their votes. The candidates must be “qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence.”
During the third and final presidential debate, the Republican nominee Trump flat out accuses the Democratic nominee Clinton of paying people to incite violence at his rallies. Many people disagreed with him and said he was being hyperbolic but when Project Veritas released the undercover film “Rigging the Election,” it proved Trump to be correct.
Scott Foval, the National Director at Americans United for Change (who has also worked with People for the American Way) and Robert Creamer, both members of Clinton’s campaign admitted on an undercover video “Rigging the Election,” by James O’Keefe of Project Veritas that they “pay the DNC, then the DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, and the Foval Group executes the s**t on the ground.”
Foval continues, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say,” Foval concludes. “We need to win this motherf*****r.” Foval also admits that his staff trains protesters “on how to get themselves into a situation on tape, on camera, that we can use later.”
In closing, if there were some way that Clinton could weasel her way into the presidency, would she fit Hamilton’s definition of a worthy candidate?