The Real Reason Trump Was Investigated for Russian Ties

Hillary Clinton Delivering Campaign Speech

My hypothesis as to why President Trump was investigated for Russian ties is at least as plausible, and likely far more plausible, than the Democrat Party’s Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy. The Democrat Party is on a crusade to destroy Donald Trump’s Presidency. So far, an 8+ month investigation has returned exactly zero evidence that Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Note: There are no claims that the grossly embarrassing information exposed by the DNC server hack and John Podesta’s emails was faked.

The Democrat Party is well known for the tactic of going on the Offensive by charging opponents with accusations that they themselves are guilty of. They are quick to tar and feather the Republican Party and every member in it as racist supporters of the Ku Klux Klan working to bring back Jim Crow Laws for example. Of course the truth is that the Klan was the militant arm of the Democrat Party, and it was Democrats who invented and employed Jim Crow Laws. History shows that Republicans were the Party that fought the Klan and Jim Crow Laws.

It’s also well known that in campaigns the truth doesn’t always matter. October surprises often have some measure of truth, but their real intent is to quickly damage one’s opponent in the run up to Election Day. The election ends before the full truth gets out.

It’s with these two thoughts as background that I hypothesize that the investigation into Donald Trump and his campaign’s alleged ties to Russia was in fact:

  1. A weaponization of the United States intelligence agencies and
  2. Their use in opposition research for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Why? Remember, the book Clinton Cash clearly detailed Hillary and Bill Clinton’s ties to the Russian Government and Vladimir Putin. Bill Clinton was given over $700,000 for a speech that he gave in Russia. There were very clear ties between Hillary and Bill to wealthy Russian oligarchs.

Infographic Highlighting Corruption From Clinton Cash

Select Examples From “Clinton Cash” Exposing Hillary and Bill Clinton’s Scheme to Enrich Themselves And Their Foundation

Clinton Cash details the connections between the Clintons and Russian front companies in the sale of 20% of US uranium mines to the Russians. Clinton Cash also details how nine investors connected with the sale donated $145 Million to the Clinton foundation.

Hillary Clinton had no defense against these revelations. They were well documented and damning. Her campaign had to be concerned about her connections to Russia and Putin and her role as SECSTATE in moving the sale forward, so they needed a strategy to deal with it. Beyond ignoring the scandal, it’s likely that Hillary’s best strategy for blunting the impact of this bombshell was to have counter charges ready to go against Donald Trump.

Going on the Offensive against Trumps campaign might buy her enough time to get her safely through the election. In order to orchestrate an attack against Trump, Hillary’s political machine required a portfolio of evidence stockpiled and disseminated within Democratic operatives to be used at the moment of greatest need.

Unfortunately, the Russian connections to Clinton never became a significant issue during the election, despite its explosive nature. Clearly the Democrat Party and the minion media were completely convinced that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election, and so the blitzkrieg counterattack against Donald Trump and his campaign was never used.

Hillary Clintons campaign and the Democrat Party were shocked the night of 8 November, and Trumps win demanded an explanation. The Democrat rank and file was enraged, since the minion media convinced them Hillary was going to win in a landslide. From their perspective it wasn’t possible that Trump could’ve beaten her fair and square.

The Democrat Party/Minion Media conspiracy that came out was the unspent Opposition Research round that Donald Trumps campaign had ties to the Russians. In the end this witch-hunt will find nothing because there was nothing to it, and there never was intended to be anything of substance in it. The intent was merely to distract the American voter long enough to get Hillary across the finish line.

Further evidence as to my contention that ties to Russians and their impact on America’s elections really have nothing to do with this story is the clear evidence that no one is asking about Hillary Clinton’s ties to the Russians and what influence or leverage they may have had over her, had she become President. The fact that this is a one-way story, completely surrounding Donald Trump and his campaign, proves that facts really didn’t matter.

Update:

“The president’s legal team said Saturday they believe the entire meeting may have been part of a larger election-year opposition effort aimed at creating the appearance of improper connections between Trump family members and Russia that also included a now-discredited intelligence dossier produced by a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele who worked for a U.S. political firm known as Fusion GPS.”

  • The recently released book Shattered details how Hillary’s Campaign was responsible for starting the conspiracy theory immediately following her 8 Nov loss.

A Sense of Belonging Why Trump Resonates

KC Chiefs vs Redskins FedEx Field 8 Dec 13

KC Chiefs vs Redskins FedEx Field 8 Dec 13

Humans are a social species and are ingrained with a need to belong, and its one of the reasons Trumps campaign is so powerful. Belonging is essential to humanity. We crave the others companionship, and form nearly infinite groups to soothe that craving.

Churches, national citizenship, sports teams, law enforcement organizations, the brother hood of arms, PTA, trade organizations, political parties, unions, civic organizations, political organizations, fan clubs, and rod and gun clubs name but a few.

The importance of our need to belong cant be overstated. Democrat Politicians are masters at using the same desires to belong to divide the country. They try to push each American into ever-smaller groups and to pit those groups against each other. White vs black, haves vs have-nots, LBGT vs non-LGBT, law enforcement vs oppressed, religious vs secular, majority vs minority, working vs unemployed, business owners vs employees, citizens vs immigrant, and the list goes on.

Instead of using groups to divide, Trump is harnessing that need in his quest to become President by uniting Americans. His campaigns slogan is Make America Great Again. So far, its gotten him past a Republican Primary field as large and talented as any in history. Why does it resonate?

First, any American who loves this country wants it to be great.

Second, most Americans recognize that the Democrat Party has been assaulting our country’s greatness for many years. Barack Obama just accelerated that assault, on both social and international levels.

Third, any US citizen who identifies as an American first feels that powerful unifying identity to belong to a group, other Americans.

Fourth, just like NFL football fans unify around their teams draft picks, new star players, and fresh coaches because they want their teams to win, Americans who love our country want it to win. Donald Trump hits that note in his message. You will get tired of winning once Im President because we will win at everything.

Americans love to win, and we love our Country. Trump does to.

What if Romney or McCain Were Running Part 2?

What if Romney or McCain were Running in the 2016 GOP Primaries? Mitt Romney unleashed a blistering condemnation of Donald Trump, the GOP front-runner, on Thursday, followed quickly by John McCain’s piling on. They speak from positions as elected Republicans, but also as the previous two Republican Presidential nominees, both of who were defeated in the general election by President Obama. It raises an interesting question: how would their nomination runs stack up in comparison to the 2016 GOP primaries?

So far, 15 states held their GOP nominating contests, with the 16th going today. CHART 1 compares the state-by-state vote totals between 2008, 2012 and 2016. Those comparisons show that the votes cast in all but 2 (Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) of the second 15 contests in 2016 exceed the totals from either 2008 or 2012.

CHART 1: More Total Votes Were Cast In 13 of the second 15 Contests In 2016 Compare To Either 2012 Or 2008. Only Puerto Rico and The District of Columbia Are Outliers

CHART 1: More Total Votes Were Cast In 13 of the second 15 Contests In 2016 Compare To Either 2012 Or 2008. Only Puerto Rico and The District of Columbia Are Outliers

When the total votes from all 15 states are compared, as shown in CHART 2, the magnitude of 2016’s turn out is revealed. So far, 7.3 million more votes were cast in 2016 than in 2012 (up 57.7%), and 7.49 million more than in 2008 (up 59.6%). So how would Romney or McCain be doing if they ran in 2016 with the same vote totals from their winning 2012 and 2008 campaigns?

CHART 2: Total Votes Cast In First 30 GOP Nomination Contests: 2016 (20,053,961), 2012 (12,716,683), 2008 (12,522,162)

CHART 2: Total Votes Cast In First 30 GOP Nomination Contests: 2016 (20,053,961), 2012 (12,716,683), 2008 (12,522,162)

CHART 3 compares the winning candidate’s vote totals from each of the second 15 nominating contests. The data shows that with the same votes, the winner in 2016 would have won in 2008 and 2012 in 11 of the 15 states. When the first 15 contests are added in, the 2016 contest winners would have taken 23 of the first 30 contests compared against 2012 and 2008 winners combined.

CHART 3: 11 Of 15 States Had More Votes Cast In 2016 For The Winner Than In 2012 Or 2008 Combined. 23 Of The First 30 Contests Had More Votes Cast In 2016 Than 2012 Or 2008 Combined.

CHART 3: 11 Of 15 States Had More Votes Cast In 2016 For The Winner Than In 2012 Or 2008 Combined. 23 Of The First 30 Contests Had More Votes Cast In 2016 Than 2012 Or 2008 Combined.

TABLE 1 shows the raw vote totals for the second 15 GOP contests, and breaks out those won by Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008 in blue. Head to head, Romney would have lost all but three of the second 15 states. When the first 15 states are added in, Romney would have lost 25 of the first 30 GOP contests (Vermont, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and North Caroline). He would have likely dropped out by now.

Table 1: Mitt Romney Would Have Only Won 4 Of The Second 15 Contests, McCain Only 2.

Table 1: Mitt Romney Would Have Only Won 4 Of The Second 15 Contests, McCain Only 2.

When McCain’s totals are put to the test, he fares even worse. He would have been defeated in all but three contests out of the first 30 (Vermont, District of Columbia, and Kentucky), and also would have likely dropped out.

So what does this tell us?

  • First, it indicates that the 2016 GOP turnout is very high, up over 57% so far compared to the last two nominating contests. The GOP will need millions more votes in the general election to win than Romney got in 2012. So far, those voters are turning out.
  • Second, its now clear that both Romney and McCain would have been soundly defeated if they had run in 2016 and received their winning votes from 2012 and 2008 respectively. As a result, their moral positions as beaten GOP candidates is heavily blunted.
  • Republican voters soundly defeated establishment candidates. They are speaking, but the GOP establishment refuses to listen. The Trump and Cruz campaigns, along with their voters and the establishment must come together this fall in order to defeat whomever the democrat candidate is.
  • The opposite voting pattern is occurring in the Democrat Race, and the front runner has serious legal problems.

Data from USElectionAtlas.Org

Is Conservative Talk Radio Turning On Trump?

AM 630 Talk Radio

AM 630 Talk Radio

Have we witnessed the first evidence of a chink in Donald Trump’s venerable campaign armor?

Trump entered the GOP Presidential Nomination race and vaulted from laughable entrant in June of 2015 to front-runner within a little over 30 days. Establishment Republicans and the media attacked Trump from the beginning. It took months of sustained front-runner status for them to conclude that he was going to stay in the race, and that his motivation wasnt publicity, as first speculated.

Despite making numerous statements that the establishment touted as campaign ending, he continued to hold a steady national lead among the GOP field. Trump appeared immune to attacks, blunders and condemnation. The one place that he was not universally condemned however was in conservative talk radio.

Four people specifically avoided the Oklahoma Land Rush to stop Trump. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham maintained an even keeled assessment of Trump. They neither endorsed, nor condemned him, but analyzed his ability to dominate media cycles, drown out fellow candidates, and silence critics while taking the fight to his opponents. The result was Trump had top cover within the listening audience, to make his case. Many gave him the benefit of the doubt, and so his support base grew within conservative ranks, but also among independents and some democrat demographics, such as blue-collar workers. Trumps honeymoon with the above four talk radio hosts began to erode in December.

When Ted Cruzs numbers began to steadily rise in Iowa and nationally in early November, Trump moved in to put him down, as he had with Bush in the summer, and Carson in the fall. This time the talk radio reaction was different. The big fourdid not provide nearly the top cover that they had in previous months. They began to question Trump, and at times sided with Ted Cruz. Mark Levin became openly critical, condemning the ludicrous Trump charge that Cruz was ineligible to run for president for example.

The impactmay have played out in Iowa, where Trump lost to Ted Cruz by three points, despite the polls, including entrance polls, predictinga Trump victory.

Both Cruz and Rubio exceeded polling expectations in Iowa, in the highest GOP turnout in history. Trump sagged! Clearly both Cruz and Rubio had strong ground games, which Trumps campaign did not. That likely played a factor as well, but the impact of conservative talk radio on this election should not be underestimated.

The Establishment GOP is reaping the consequences from years of ignoring the will of its base. Rush Limbaugh led the analysisexposing the betrayal. Donald Trump benefited from a retaliatory anger, but the bloom may be off the conservative media rose, and if so, only time will tell if he can capture the nomination without it.

How Many Walls Does America Need?

Donald Trump burst onto the GOP Presidential Candidate scene with his pledge to build a wall along America’s southern border. It may be a euphamism, but that isn’t the only “wall” that needs building. In one context or another, GOP candidates touch on these walls, but they need further examination, as discussed in my Audio Blog below.

  • Wall on the Southern US Border
  • Constitutional Firewalls (separation of powers)
  • Wall between legal and illegal
  • Walls between what it means to be a US citizen and those who are not
  • Wall between elected public servants and their employers; the American people. Establishment Party officials acting as if it’s the other way around.