This case study was motivated by a news article that, from the author's point of view, asserted an ill-founded argumentation concerning the usage of words, 'cornerstone' and 'linchpin'. This paper first presents the theoretical framework that functions as an overriding premise in the author's argumentation, which is the concept of intertextuality, with an emphasis on its importance in conducting the task of translators and interpreters (Neubert & Shreve 1992: 117). Based on the concept, it briefly shows the intertwined relationship between US political communication and Christian language whose main source is the Bible, resorting a press (Wall Street Journal) analysis on the frequency of Bible references in inaugural addresses through the US presidential history. In the body of the study, it lays out its argumentation in a form of hypothesis, "Under the stated conditions, what would the text producer on the question, Donald Trump, choose to utter between 'cornerstone' and 'linchpin'?" To verify the hypothesis, the author presented evidences that the questioned text producer has likely formed a reservoir of Christian language and has uttered seemingly-Bible-induced expressions in his remarks. Lastly, the study compares 'cornerstone' and 'linchpin' in terms of the proximity toward Christian language by browsing them in the Bible.