An Independent View of The Donald J Trump Presidency: Part 1 Donald Trump's Rise to Power in the GOP

By William Smith

In the last four years, I have been seeking answers as to why our country is so deeply divided. Are we being fooled by those whom we rely on to deliver the truth about what is happening within America? I believe that our government has failed us by allowing those with ulterior motives to influence our hearts and minds by commercially controlling our free enterprise system of democracy.

This book takes a chronological look at the inner workings of our government, leading up and into Donald Trump's administration, which has made him the most controversial president of my lifetime. He has created a following that is every bit as fanatical about our government as he has been in the way he has shaped his administration to conform to his authority.

Here we have a president that was impeached twice, has a long history of involvement in lawsuits, plays by his own rules, runs his business enterprises in an autocratic manner, demands loyalty while firing those who fail to serve his needs, yet can do no wrong in the eyes of his MAGA admirers. Half of America loves him and half despises him. Who really knows and understands Donald Trump?

Unfortunately, we do not listen to another's position in life because we have already been conditioned to believe in what we have been told and what we have experienced ourselves. We have been further hampered by the lack of information as much as by planted misinformation.

Finding the truth within Trump's presidency has been my obsession. What I promised to do is find the cause and effect of our differences by presenting verifiably historical documentation so that readers can evaluate for themselves what is real and what is deliberate deception. As an Independent voter, I have called upon my conservative friends and acquaintances to present their point of view.

In order to "Make America Great Again," all we need to do is listen to each other then speak our concerns with understanding and compassion.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Nov 4, 2022
• ISBN: 9798886542066

Book preview

cover.jpg

An Independent View of The Donald J Trump Presidency

Part 1 Donald Trump's Rise to Power in the GOP

William Smith

Copyright © 2022 William Smith

All rights reserved

First Edition

PAGE PUBLISHING

Conneaut Lake, PA

First originally published by Page Publishing 2022

ISBN 979-8-88654-203-5 (pbk)

ISBN 979-8-88654-209-7 (hc)

ISBN 979-8-88654-206-6 (digital)

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Preface

Chapter 1

How Trump Won the 2016 Republican Nomination

Verbal Attacks on His Primary Campaign Challengers

The Electoral College

His Primary Campaign Strategy—Rallies

The Right to Bear Arms

Religion—Abortion a Fierce Religious Dilemma

Using President Bill Clinton's Impeachment against Hillary

Chapter 2

The GOP's All-Out Attack on Hillary Clinton

The Embassy Attack in Benghazi, Libya

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

State Department Accountability Review Board

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (SHSGA)

Hillary Clinton's Appearance Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Chapter 3

The Republican-Controlled House of Representatives

House Committee on Oversight and Reform

House Intelligence Committee

House Judiciary Committee

House Armed Services Committee

House Select Committee on Benghazi

Chapter 4

Hillary Clinton's Emails

Searching Private Emails for Public Disclosure

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Election Year of 2016—GOP Pressure on Hillary Clinton Rises

The Role of WikiLeaks

The First Presidential Debate

FBI-Executed Search Warrant on Anthony Weiner

Chapter 5

Russian Election Interference and Social Media

Political and Social Discord in the United States

Senate Judiciary Subcommittees on Social Media Hearings

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI)

An Update on Information Operations on Facebook

Chapter 6

The Russian Influence on the Trump Campaign

Interference First Found During the Obama Administration

The Trump Tower Moscow Project (2013–2016)

Papadopoulos as Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Adviser

The Steele Dossier (June–December 2016)

FBI Investigation—Crossfire Hurricane (July 2016–May 2017)

Chapter 7

House Intelligence Committee under Chairman Devin Nunes

Nunes Makes Impromptu Press Conferences in Spring 2017

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Chairman Nunes Forced to Recuse Himself and FBI Director Comey Is Fired

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson Testifies Before House Committee

House Ethics Committee Issued Press Release on Nunes

Chapter 8

The Trump Tower Meeting in New York City

Background Information Leading to the Trump Tower Meeting

The Muller Report on the Trump Tower Meeting

Senate Judiciary Committee Findings on the Trump Tower Meeting

Chapter 9

Donald Trump's Cabinet Appointments

Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross Jr.

Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette

Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Benjamin S. Carson Sr.

Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt

Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia

Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao

Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy

Chapter 10

Trump's A List of Appointments

Stephen K. Bannon as Campaign Chief

The Importance of the US Attorney General

Acting Attorneys General Sally Yates and Dana James Boente

Jeff Sessions as Trump's Attorney General

Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General

William Barr as Attorney General

National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and K. T. McFarland

Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster as National Security Advisor

John Robert Bolton as National Security Advisor

Ivanka Trump's and Jared Kushner's Roles in the Administration

Donald McGahn, Counsel to the President

Chapter 11

House and Senate Intelligence Investigations (2018)

Director of National Intelligence Report

The Nunes Memo and the Deep State Conspiracy Theory

House Intelligence and Oversight Committee

The Interrogation of FBI Agent Peter Strzok

Democrats Take Control of the House in 2019

The Republican-Led Senate Intelligence Committee

Chapter 12

Special Counsel Mueller Investigation

The Start of the Mueller Investigation

The Findings of the Mueller Report

Uncooperative Trump Advisers Given End-of-Term Pardons

Michael Cohen—Former Attorney and Fixer for Donald J. Trump

Chapter 13

The Role of Fox News and Conservative Media

Fox News

The Internet and Trump's Organization (Brad Parscale)

Conspiracy Theories and the Deep State (QAnon and 4chan)

The Sinclair Broadcast Group

Chapter 14

Conversations with Trump Supporters—Part 1

Why I Became Involved in Trump Politics

Obamacare Not Constitutional—Conservative A

Democrats Out to Get Trump—Conservative B

The Mueller Coup Against Trump—Conservative C

The Effect of Misinformation—Conservative D

Conservatives Have a Media Disadvantage—Conservative E

Epilogue

Preface

Since the turn of the century, I, like so many others, have become disillusioned with the political dissension within our government. As a lifelong registered Independent, I have always voted for whomever I believed would best represent the needs of the general population and not the goals of a specific party. My concern with politics peaked as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack by hijacked commercial planes that destroyed the Twin Tower buildings in New York City and hit the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane crashed in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Almost three thousand people were killed during the 9/11 air assault, which triggered major US initiatives to combat terrorism.

Leading up to the year 2000, there were a lot of predictions that the new millennium would bring disaster. Some believed that there would be a World War III coming, which would be even more destructive than the previous two nineteenth-century world wars. This was also the time when everyone was led to believe that the coming new year would bring a disaster because computer technology would not be able to recognize the millennial change from the 1900s to the 2000s. It was feared that computer technology wasn't designed, in many respects, to handle the change of century and would roll over the counting of time starting in 1900 and not AD 2000. This did not happen as predicted.

The devastating terrorist attack on September 11 occurred less than nine months after George W. Bush and the GOP regained control of our government. I certainly agreed with the decision to seek out those who were responsible; however, we were somewhat misguided. Osama bin Laden, founder of the Islamic militant organization Al-Qaeda, was correctly discovered as the mastermind behind the attack. This brought us into a war in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, far-right GOP neocons convinced the American people that we also needed to invade Iraq, yet their reasoning was deceptive and proven wrong. I strongly disagreed with this invasion and the resulting destruction of a foreign nation.

Where does the truth lie? Was Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq, a ruthless leader and threat to the United States? Was Iraq about to become a hostile nation with nuclear capability as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice famously stated, We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud? This idea was politically planted to encourage public support for the act of war. I see even more disinformation seeping into our everyday lives since the Trump-Clinton presidential campaigns.

Since the transition into the twenty-first century, I've been awakened to the way our government is manipulated in a self-serving manner when one party is in complete control. This has been particularly true when the GOP has control over Congress, as well as the presidency. My assessment may seem surprising because the economy seems to flourish whenever Republicans are in power. After all, the economy has always been their claim to prosperity for all. Add to this, the conservative belief in controlling government spending and the elimination of regulations that restrict the free market system, then everything will be better for America.

Unfortunately, there are more elements to consider. Despite the GOP's stated intentions, the budget deficit and national debt always seem to be on the rise, along with the cost of living. Now wait, I think I've confused one thing I just said. Doesn't the cost of everything rapidly rise whenever the Democrats take control of our federal government. Why is that? Inflation is the effect we feel, but what is the cause? This is a question that most people never take into account.

Conservative media will tell you that whenever the Democrats are in power, everything good that was happening under GOP rule gets turned around. They warn that left-leaning Democrats are more interested in expanding socialistic programs. This redirects America's wealth to our undeserving and unmotivated population, including foreigners with criminal intentions who invade our country, looking for government assistance. Is all of this true, or is it perception?

The GOP is made up of war hawks that are forever increasing the military budget at the expense of government assistance for a struggling population. Conservatives believe that having the greatest military force in the world will be a deterrent to all other nations. This doesn't work when we become the cause for invading a foreign country. Having a strong military force also doesn't help when groups of Americans are attacking one another. Imagine what would happen if similar-minded groups banded together to fight for or against the beliefs of those who do not conform to their way of life.

Imagine further what would happen if we became convinced that our government was totally corrupt. What could happen if the president, who we totally believe is working in our best interests, preaches that our corrupt government is preventing him from fulfilling his presidential ambitions? What if all of this is true and the president gains control over the other two branches of our government, the legislative and judicial part of the Constitution? Would he use our military capabilities against our own people?

With technological achievement comes responsibility with consequences for gross misuse or unrestricted application. We already have seen the social downturn that exists today with all the misinformation that is allowed to be broadcast everywhere and anywhere, as if it were some God-given freedom. If it were God-given, then free speech demands to be truthful. Isn't that what our forefathers intended? The stated freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights was never intended as a right to do harm with deliberate intention. Isn't this why we have a judicial system, and isn't this why we must appoint justices to all levels of government that are totally impartial, as well as highly qualified?

These questions that I have raised created a desire to have a comprehensive debate with others in a civilized manner. Consequently, I resorted to debating issues in writing by sending interchanging beliefs and concerns via email. This gives each of us time to digest what was written and allow time to formulate one's true feelings without face-to-face emotion restricting our train of thought. It is these responses that I received, compiled over time, that were the genesis for my writing this book.

Because these debates have opened my eyes as to why people believe the way they do, I have dedicated two and a half chapters that will present the reader with interestingly passionate explanations. Hopefully, people will see their own convictions being presented, which may shed some light as to how and why we believe only what we want to believe.

Today we are so preoccupied with our lives that we become oblivious to seeing the big picture as to why our government is so dysfunctional. We don't have time to research whether our elected officials and their supportive news outlets are telling us the full truth, or intentionally manipulating us. Being retired, I have had the time to follow the presidency of Donald Trump and to witness the televised hearings that overshadowed his entire time in office. I've spent over four years trying to find the truth behind our differences and recording my findings in a chronological order as the Trump administration developed under his guidance.

Since Trump's history is surrounded by congressional and federal investigations, in addition to his personally generated lawsuits, I found that using the actual court transcripts provides a more accurate accounting of what has been occurring within our democratic form of government. Is there a deep state entity that is determined to permanently remove Donald Trump from office? What part have conspiracy theories played, and who is responsible for creating them? Does the news media and our elected representatives in Congress share responsibility for deceiving the American people for personal gain? I believe my research, spread over two volumes, will provide answers to these questions.

This compilation of detailed researched material grew to a point of having so much historical information that it reached a point where it had to be divided into two books. Book 1 titled Donald Trump's Rise to Power encompasses his presidential campaign strategy and first two years in office. This is his period in time when the Republican Party also had full control of the legislative branch of Congress, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

Book 2 titled Donald Trump's Impeachment Problems covers the changes that happened when the Democratic Party gained control of the House of Representatives. It depicts his actions that led to not only one but two impeachment processes. It also follows what has occurred after his failure to be reelected to another term.

In order to present the most honest evaluation of his presidency, I offer verifiable sources throughout each book that can be used to further evaluate any disagreement or doubts you may still have after reading the material presented. My writing is not an attack on conservative values, for I agree with these concepts for the most part, especially fiscal accountability. What I am attacking is the deliberate weaponization of misinformation as political propaganda and our government allowing the flooding of conspiracy theories over social media along with the excessive commercialization of today's technology.

Chapter 1

How Trump Won the 2016 Republican Nomination

Verbal Attacks on His Primary Campaign Challengers

To my surprise and seemingly everyone's surprise, Donald J. Trump won the 2016 presidential election. Those who voted for Trump were every bit as surprised as were Hillary's supporters. Officially, the Electoral College voting results were 232, Hillary Clinton; 306, Donald J. Trump. Clinton received 2.87 million more votes than Trump did (48 percent to Trump's 46 percent). Ultimately, Trump received 304 electoral votes, and Clinton, 227, as two faithless electors defected from Trump and five defected from Clinton.

With seventeen Republican primary candidates showing the nasty nature of today's political campaigns, using negative attack ads against everyone, including one another, most Americans tuned them out. This was the largest presidential primary field for any political party in American history at the time. The Democrat primary had very few candidates running and only two serious contenders, Hillary Clinton and socialist Bernie Sanders.

Most Republican voters had little interest in what established politicians were saying. The country was fed up with a do-nothing highly partisan Congress. Almost all the people I know spoke of their being so tired of feeling the ineffectiveness of our government that they listened intently to someone that talked like they do. To them, Trump appeared to be a really interesting person and also a seemingly very successful businessman. This appealed to dissatisfied voters to elect someone who was not tied to a specific party's agenda.

The long list of Republican primary candidates, whose performances in office had tired voters, did not offer much competition against Trump. Donald Trump had a story to sell to the public, and he did so in very unconventional ways. This was an act that actually appealed to many people of all walks of life. He attacked his opposition in malicious ways. He used demeaning names for most and used disparaging information against those most threatening to him. This pseudo-macho appearance, with his talk of being the law-and-order president, resonated with many voters that were tired of all the dissension we see every day from our two-party system.

Trump's overwhelming popularity with his devoted supporters gave the Republican Party notice. His surprising popularity showed that the GOP was now committed to Trump as their leader, but with much apprehension initially. Remember how Trump made fun of his opposing candidates and also criticized the Republican Party's foreign policy strategy under the Bush–Cheney eight-year administration. He attacked Florida governor Jeb Bush, whom he saw as the favored candidate, using their family history of involvement in the highly contentious Iraq War.

Another real threat to Trump's election was Marco Rubio, whom Trump liked to call little Marco. Trump's campaign aired a television ad in Florida that repeatedly labeled the state's Sen. Marco Rubio as corrupt and accused the senator of defrauding the people of Florida. The ad mentioned that as a state lawmaker, Rubio was accused of changing his vote on an issue after he sold his house to the mother of a lobbyist. Rubio said this is categorically false because the deal was an arm's-length transaction that did not impact his decision. While serving in the Florida legislature, Rubio was also caught using a Republican Party credit card to pay for paving his driveway, which he said was a mistake that he corrected. The ad further stated that he double-billed the state and the party for airline tickets, which he also said was a mistake. The ad called Rubio a total no-show in the US Senate, worst voting record of all.

In releasing the ad, Trump included a statement that begins with Lightweight Senator Marco Rubio is a dishonest person. He has cheated with credit cards, and does favors for lobbyists. In my opinion, he is a total crook, and I am doing the people of Florida a great favor by further exposing him. The statement went on to call Rubio a puppet for the Republican establishment and super PACs, a choke artist, and a yes-man. The ad ended with the narrator calling Rubio another corrupt, all-talk, no-action politician, with the word politician pronounced with extreme disgust. The ad features solemn black-and-white photos and bold red lettering. Marco Rubio suspended his campaign on March 15, 2016, after finishing a distant second in Florida's primary.

Trump's attacks on his closest rival Ted Cruz were the most vicious, as was Cruz's in return. Trump and Ted Cruz, who eventually dropped out of the GOP primary in May of 2016, attacked each other's wives, citizenship, religious faith, and integrity. They even threatened to sue each other for accusations of lying and cheating. They attacked each other fourteen times in very nasty ways. Trump tweeted that "Lyin' Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a GQ shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin' Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!" The tweet came after an anti-Trump group that wasn't controlled by Cruz ran an ad in Utah featuring a provocative picture of Melania, a former model, from a GQ photo shoot more than a decade ago. Trump implied that Cruz's wife, Heidi, was responsible for the provocation Trump felt.

Heidi Cruz, who earned a master's of European business degree from Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management of the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium, and a second MBA from Harvard Business School, was active at the time in her husband's primary campaign. She previously worked as an economic policy director on the Bush presidential, campaign and later worked for the Bush administration in several high-level capacities.

Trump kicked the insults up a notch by retweeting a composite image featuring an unflattering photo of Heidi next to a photo of Melania. No need to ‘spill the beans,' a caption on the image read. The images are worth a thousand words. The senator's wife hit back at Trump on the campaign trail in Wisconsin. Well, as you probably know by now, most of the things, many of the things others say are not based in reality, Heidi Cruz said.

By March 16 of 2016, only three candidates remained in the race: Trump, Cruz, and Kasich. Cruz won the most delegates in four Western contests and in Wisconsin, keeping a credible path to denying Trump the nomination on the first ballot with 1,237 delegates. Trump then increased his lead by scoring landslide victories in New York and five Northeastern states in April, followed by a decisive victory in Indiana in early May, securing all fifty-seven of the state's delegates. Without any further chances of forcing a contested convention, both Cruz and Kasich suspended their campaigns. Trump remained the only active candidate and was declared the presumptive Republican nominee by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus on the evening of May 3, 2016.

By October 2018, Trump decided that he and Cruz needed each other. Cruz was no longer lyin' Ted—his notorious nickname for the senator during the campaign—and was now beautiful Ted. The president made the announcement ahead of a campaign rally he hosted in Texas to support Cruz's tough reelection bid. This says a lot about politicians who will do whatever is necessary to hold their political positions of power within our government.

The Electoral College

The Electoral College was never intended to be the perfect system for picking the president. It was a compromise created as a solution to two different concerns. One group of delegates felt strongly that Congress shouldn't have anything to do with picking the president. Too much opportunity for corruption between closely aligned members of the executive and legislative branches. At the time, no other country in the world directly elected its chief executive, so the delegates were looking into uncharted territory. Further complicating the task was a deep-rooted distrust of executive power. After all, the fledgling nation had just fought its way out from under a tyrannical king and overreaching colonial governors. They didn't want another despot ruling our country.

Others among our forefathers were dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought eighteenth-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a large headstrong group with the intent on steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power. Did our forefathers predict exactly what gravely concerns our country today?

Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of having electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn't be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent electors who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency. State legislatures are responsible for nominating electors. The process can actually differ from state to state, but in general, there are two most common ways. The first way is by nominating a representative elector by his or her state party committee. Many are picked as a reward for their many years of service to the party. A second way is by the elector campaigning for a spot with the decision being made during a vote held at the state's party convention.

Usually, electors are people who are politically active in their party or connected to the political system. This includes political activists, party leaders, elected officials of the state, and even people who have personal or political ties to the presidential candidates. To me, the choosing of someone who has personal ties to the president-elect is troublesome. This final way of electing a president by members of the Electoral College means that a president who was not the strongest choice of the American people could be elected. Therefore, members of the electoral college could decide to support an opponent instead of whom you've helped elect by casting your presidential vote.

Five times in history, presidential candidates have won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. This has led some to question why Americans use this system to elect their presidents in the first place. The system calls for the creation, every four years, of a temporary group of electors equal to the total number of representatives in Congress. Technically, it is these electors, and not the American people, who vote for the president. In modern elections, the first candidate to get 270 of the 538 total electoral votes wins the presidency.

This is what happened in favor of Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton who won the popular vote by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2 percent) to his 62,979,879 (46.1 percent), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The 2016 election was the first in over a hundred years in which multiple electors worked to alter the result of the election. This resulted in their being seven successfully cast opposition votes. The Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, lost five of her pledged electors, four from the state of Washington and one from Hawaii. The Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump, lost two, both from the state of Texas.

The final state totals of the Electoral College resulted with Trump receiving 306 and Clinton 232 votes. Trump won 30 states with Clinton only 20 states. The defections fell well short of the number needed to change the result of the election; only 2 of the 7 defected from the winner, whereas 37 were needed to defect in order to force a contingent election in Congress (a tally of less than 270).

The morning after the November 8, 2016, election, everyone knew that Donald Trump won the election by passing the minimum requirement of 270 electoral votes with over 300 based on the number of states he predictably won. This election demonstrated that it is possible to win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote. This has happened only in 2016, in 2000, and three times in the 1800s. George W. Bush won in 2000 and now Trump in 2016. Some of the writers of our Constitution worried about this happening with the possibility that someone unfit to be president may be chosen by these electors.

This dilemma was addressed in The Federalist Papers essay number 68, in which Alexander Hamilton wrote that electors had a constitutional duty to make sure that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. It also encouraged electors to thwart the election of any president who might serve as a vessel for the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

This dilemma wasn't properly recognized in 2016. Wasn't Donald Trump elected by the people because they thought of him as an ordinary citizen like themselves, making him unqualified? Further consider that as a businessman, he had financial dealings with countries that are not always friendly to American interests.

The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym Publius to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution. Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use The Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions. In addition to laying out the many ways in which they believed the Articles of Confederation didn't work, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison used The Federalist essays to explain key provisions of the proposed Constitution, as well as the nature of the republican form of government.

Much of America was quite disturbed with the results of the election and tried to put as much pressure on the members of the Electoral College to vote against their state's popular vote. On December 14, the Unite for America campaign released a video published on YouTube and other media directly pleading to Republican electors, urging them to vote for a Republican other than Donald Trump for president. The video featured numerous public figures, including Debra Messing, Martin Sheen, and Bob Odenkirk, urging Republican electors to prevent a Trump presidency, expressing several times the message I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton. In electing an alternative Republican, the featured speakers asked the elector to become an American hero by using the elector's constitutional authority to give service and patriotism to the American people through a vote of conscience.

This pressure on the Electoral College members from the Democrat side was met with even greater pressure from the Republican side. The Republican National Committee mounted an expansive whip operation to ensure that all those electors selected to vote for the Republican nominee indeed did so. According to one member of the Electoral College who spoke under the condition of anonymity, Donald Trump's campaign was pressuring Republican electors into voting for them under threats of political reprisal.

The elector emphasized that these reports had come straight from the Republican electors themselves, with the threats steering clear of violence but instead focusing on career pressure. It's all political, basically, the elector said. If Trump becomes the president, he's going to be able to put pressure on the state parties and they won't be involved anymore. On December 14, the day of their voting, multiple Republican members of the electoral college stated under condition of anonymity that they were threatened to vote for Donald Trump. They received threats of political reprisal, adding that the Donald Trump campaign was putting pressure on Republican electors to vote for him because their political future was based on whether they or not they did.

Looking back on George Bush's 2000 election, which is considered one of the closest elections in US history, ending with the state of Florida being the controversial deciding factor, the returns showed that Bush had won Florida by such a close margin that state law required a recount. A monthlong series of legal battles led to the highly controversial 5–4 Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore, which ended the recount. The recount having been ended, Bush won Florida by 537 votes, a margin of 0.009 percent. Ultimately, Bush won 271 electoral votes, one more than a majority, despite Gore receiving 543,895 more votes (a margin of 0.51 percent of all votes cast).

His Primary Campaign Strategy—Rallies

Trump's campaign methods resonated with American voters through the use of social media and his primary rallies. When his growing following expressed the feeling that he is like us, they got the impression he was for their common beliefs and was not a politician. He got their attention by saying the things that they wanted to hear and by the way he acted when in the eye of a camera. Voters were fed up with all the established politicians who were so polarized that they have not performed in the best interests of everyday working Americans.

Having a successful businessman as president was very appealing. Why not have our government run like a successful business? The answer to this question is one that needs to be fully understood. Will a very successful real estate magnate govern in our best interests? Will his business practices and experiences be good for government? What does he know about foreign policy and the history of our alliances with foreign nations?

Although Donald Trump was so unexpectedly elected president, the many reasons for his successful campaign are still being debated to this day, and history will be the final judge of his presidency. His abundant use of social media to appeal to America was unique in method and prominent in his campaign. Throughout his presidency, Trump used these rallies as a never-ending platform for fundraising.

It would be an eye-opening experience for anyone who is willing to take the time and interest to use their DVR to record and play back President Trump's rallies. The interaction between Trump and his ardent followers is very revealing when you're watching everyone wildly applauding his exaggerated accomplishments, most of which are not of his making and verifiably false. Because Trump's rallies are televised and used as his personal show, his misleading statements, hyperbole, and outright lies were seen as totally believable by his audience. In watching many of these performances, I believe that his backdrop of supporters shown behind Trump's podium, are repeat attendees. Like a TV show's audience, Trump's programmers place the people who appear before the cameras that are willing to cheer gleefully while displaying signs of support and gladly applaud his ridicule of opponents.

What is most alarming at Trump's political rallies is seeing how the audience had been captively influenced by disproven conspiracy theories that have been continually promoted by right-wing conservative TV, radio, and news reporters. They hold up signs displaying QAnon, considered to be a cult of far-right political conspiracy theories and a mass political movement. The original posts associated with QAnon conspiracy theories appeared in late October 2017, purporting to be from a Trump insider with Q security clearance who said Hillary Clinton faced arrest and her allies were running a massive child-sex ring.

From November 2017 on, QAnon was the single most frequent hashtag tweeted by accounts that Twitter has since identified as Russian backed, a Reuters analysis of the archive shows, with the term used some seventeen thousand times. A Q clearance or Q access authorization is the United States Department of Energy (DOE) security clearance required to access top-secret restricted data. Followers of these conspiracy theories say that Trump was planning mass arrests and executions of thousands of cabal members on a day known as the Storm or the Event. QAnon supporters have named Hollywood actors, Democrat politicians, high-ranking government officials, business tycoons and medical experts as members of the cabal.

Unfortunately, I believe that most of the people who go to these political rallies believe in what he is saying. They hear these same things on Fox News and don't take the time to watch other reports by mainstream media. I've come to believe that Trump does say different things that contradict what he said before. Who has the time to find out who is right when we seem to accept that all politicians lie?

As it later turns out for Trump's 2020 reelection campaign, Facebook now claims the group QAnon was removed for repeatedly posting content that violated their policies. The deleted Facebook group, called Official Q/QAnon, had nearly two hundred thousand members. However, there are many other QAnon groups that are currently still active on the platform. QAnon followers are mainly supporters of Trump and his policies. In July 2020, both Twitter and TikTok also cracked down on QAnon content. Twitter banned thousands of accounts and said it would block QAnon URLs, while TikTok deleted hashtags that signposted QAnon videos. Reuters reported that Official Q / QAnon crossed the line on bullying, harassment, hate speech, and the sharing of potentially harmful misinformation. The FBI issued a warning about conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists and designated QAnon a potential domestic extremist threat.

What might be the most frightening aspect of Trump's public appearances is in his constant demeaning of all who disagree with him, for he is the only one who can solve America's problems. The total irony is that he is responsible for the hatred that has caused family members to oppose and openly argue with each other to the point of alienation. Worse yet is his promoting that his followers are the real Americans and that all foreigners hate us and are in our country to take advantage of our socialism type of benefits that they don't deserve. This is especially true of Medicaid benefits for the truly needy. He constantly claims that all his disfavored foreign nations hate America or are jealous of American democracy and that immigrants from these countries are illegal anarchists, rapists, and murderers.

When I listen to the chants of lock her up, meaning Hillary Clinton, from his MAGA audience, I get sick to my stomach. This is an extreme pronouncement that he promotes to destroy Hillary Clinton in the minds of voters. There is no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by his political opponent, only the distorted versions of what takes place during congressional hearings. These sound bites that are constantly parroted over the airwaves become fact depending on whether you are getting your information from left-leaning channels or right-favored channels.

It would be wonderful if we Americans showed greater concern for understanding the complexities of our country's problems and looked for the truth within the conflicting news stories which so greatly affect our lives. How much time is spent with our congressional representatives actually working together to develop legislation that is logically laid out in enough detail to prevent loopholes of abuse by people who will take advantage of every opportunity they think they can get away with? Look at how so many people today are involved in scamming the government and, sadly, vulnerable trusting peoples of all ages and circumstances.

We need to listen to both sides of a conflicting government legislation, but first we need to understand how our government functions. When candidate Donald J Trump tells you that he will build a wall all across our southern border and that Mexico will pay for it, how is that something he can actually accomplish? This is also true if a Democrat presidential candidate declares that they will remove the right of ownership of all weapons that they consider capable of mass destruction. What does that actually mean? This must be precisely defined by our legislators working together to understand the cause of the problem in conjunction with the solution.

We have three decidedly coequal branches of government, the executive, legislative, and judicial. Each branch of our government has been given certain powers under the US Constitution, in order to form a system of checks and balances over one another. No president should have the right to usurp control over the other branches of our government. This is what makes campaign promises suspect in nature and creates demand for individual research on an important issue with a definite need for fact-checking. Our government needs to function in a system that does not work solely for the interests of the wealthy, nor is it a permanent system of support for the needy. Our government was designed as a system of democracy that benefits all of us fairly.

Another advantage that Trump and all Republican candidates had is in the fact that many voters were primarily concerned with a single issue and voted only for those who support that principle belief. Strong examples are with gun rights as previously mentioned and the highly contentious subject of abortion rights, which has also spread as being an attack on Christianity. In reality, all religions are now under attack in our country that pledges the freedom of religion. Other issues that made people believe in choosing the Republican Party are their belief in the free enterprise system and not having government spending their tax dollars on the hated idea of socialism. Let's talk about these issues.

The Right to Bear Arms

You will always hear that if you vote for a Democrat, they will take away your guns. This is nonsense and should not be the only deciding factor in your voting decision. Please acknowledge the fact that legislation that takes away the right of citizens to protect themselves, their family, and home, or for hunting and target shootings will never be passed.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment for the first time in almost seventy years after Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia over its ban on handguns in the home. The court ruled in Heller's favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense. However, in that Supreme Court ruling, Justice Scalia said, Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

With gun ownership comes responsibility for the actions taken with all weapons you possess. Guns are purchased for variously reasons, and all of them present a danger for anyone being near someone else who is carrying. All Democrats don't want to lose your vote by passing sweeping gun-restricting legislation. When voting for an individual to serve in any federal government position, you need to look closely at all other candidates and understand exactly what they stand for and, just as importantly, their character.

Everyone purchasing a gun has some discretion in its usage and should be able to enjoy the feeling this freedom offers. The problem that non-gun owners see with those who possess guns is with knowing a neighbor that possesses a weapon and is seen as being irresponsible and of short temper in disagreement. That individual is perceived as a potential danger to their family. Even when a neighbor who is a close friend and feels comfortable with handling of guns, you still always worry about what may happen if the weapon falls into the hands of someone else who is dangerous. There is a definite need with the volatile state of today's society for sensible gun legislation.

A handgun is no match against a rifle, for it isn't anywhere near as accurate. A hunting rifle is no match against a semiautomatic rifle, which is designed for a rapid and a continuous deadly attack due to the automatic chambering of rounds after each trigger pull. Fully automatic weapons are designed to achieve a certain purpose, mainly military assault, and should be restricted to those special purposes. Here, one pull of the trigger sends off a continuous flow of bullets until the action is interrupted. There are strict rules for gaining possession; however, rules vary from state to state along with how closely they are regulated.

The AR15 (a semiautomatic rifle) used in Parkland and Sandy Hook school shootings, or similar models in other major attacks, has continued to prompt calls for new restrictions. Just three days after the Parkland massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, student Emma González mustered remarkable resilience and courage when she transformed her anguish and heartbreak into unabashed activism. She delivered an impassioned speech at a gun control rally in Fort Lauderdale, calling on President Trump's BS, other politicians, and the NRA for not tightening gun laws that could prevent the hundreds of senseless tragedies that have occurred. Her speech was broadcast nationally. Research and listen to these Florida students who spoke so eloquently about the warlike destructive nature of what they witnessed.

Google that speech, then listen to NRA's Wayne Lapierre and Dana Loesch speaking at the 2018 GOP CPAC with their blaming the problem on anything and everyone but the free flow of guns. Look closely at our politicians and tell them that you will not vote for those who are unwilling to make sensible legislative changes to our gun laws. Don't make the decision for voting for a candidate solely because he tells you his opponent will take away your guns. What is needed is accountability for gun ownership so that everyone feels safe.

Experts say there is one element of an assault weapons ban that could make a concrete difference in mass shootings: restricting large-capacity magazines, which the original bill limited to ten rounds. The shooter who killed twelve people and shot fifty-eight others at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in 2012 used a hundred-round drum magazine, for example, which prompted Colorado legislators to ban magazines that carry over fifteen bullets. Louis J. Klarevas, who researched five decades of mass shootings for his book Rampage Nation, concluded that the factor most associated with high death tolls in gun massacres is the use of a magazine holding more than ten bullets.

The issue of gun rights is a very effective campaign issue for the Republican Party with their instilling fear into the populace of restriction that won't stop. Every time there is a mass shooting, the topic of gun restriction becomes news. Gun dealerships become overwhelmed with buyers in a state of panic. We now even see on the dark web the sale of bump stocks and ghost guns. Some semiautomatic rifles like the AR15 can be privately modified to become a fully automatic assault-type rifle by using devices such as bump stocks. Bump-stock-type devices allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

On October 1, 2017, a gunman used bump stocks to fire into a crowd in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds. The gunman, Stephen Paddock, opened fire on the Route 91 Harvest music festival from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. Investigators later determined 422 people suffered injuries as a direct result of gunfire, while another 851 individuals suffered other injuries during the attack.

To his credit, Pres. Donald Trump vowed to outlaw bump stocks shortly after the Las Vegas shooting. But some lawmakers and some gun lobbyists resisted, making any new legislation unlikely. That made a regulatory change the only realistic path to accomplishing the president's goal. At Trump's direction, the Justice Department in March 2018 proposed a rule clarifying that bump stocks were not merely parts, but instead were machine guns—what the federal government calls fully automatic weapons—as defined by existing law. Civilian possession of fully automatic weapons was outlawed in 1986 except for those already lawfully in people's ownership; this is called the grandfather clause.

About half a million of the devices have been sold since 2010, and so far, relatively few have been turned in to authorities, even in the handful of states that banned them before the federal rule came out in December. Defining bump stocks as machine guns effectively bans them. Civilian possession of fully automatic weapons was outlawed in 1986 except for those already lawfully in people's ownership. Historically, when things like this happen, all sorts of people just turn to peaceful noncompliance. One reason for not complying with the ban may be the lingering hope that it will eventually be reversed.

Religion—Abortion a Fierce Religious Dilemma

The subject of abortion is a deeply held religious conviction that voters are more adamant about when selecting someone into government office than any other national issue. It is an issue that everyone needs to understand should not be the only reason for choosing a political candidate. This is especially true in a presidential election. Politicians will say whatever they believe will get them elected. After all, Trump was never a pro-life antiabortion advocate until he ran for president. His religious values seem to be confined to his speeches and not in his real-life practices, with having three different wives and known extramarital affairs. His penchant for lies, distortion of facts, and his apparent inability to express compassion for others are contradictory to having a religion-based belief system.

I personally have great respect for all those who are determined and willing to accept the birthright responsibility of having a child, regardless of what a doctor may foresee as a difficult birth that may result in having a less than normal child. That is their right and should be respected by others for the challenges the family faces. The same respect needs also to be given to those who choose not to give birth due to their personal circumstances during that time in their life. God gave us the freedom of choice, the ability to make our own decisions regardless of the consequences.

But who is to judge the right or wrong for these decisions? Creation is a religious concept that greatly differs among each religious sect. Our Constitution gives us our freedom of religion, and our government does not have the right to legislate for or against religious doctrine. What authority has the right to force an individual to do something that they know is too much for them to handle either physically or mentally, or most likely both ways?

Unfortunately, certain groups of religiously committed people have forced legislation on others that restricts their ability in preventing a birth, although they have no intimate knowledge as to why others may wrestle with making that crucial decision. Antiabortion advocates state that the sonogram taken of a fetus scientifically shows a human life occurs at birth. Fetal heartbeat bills have become the antiabortion legislative measure of choice in the US war on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). The antiabortion movement has regularly used ultrasonic imagery dating back to The Silent Scream, the influential 1984 film that depicts an abortion in progress.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) was formally incorporated in May 1973 in response to the US Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision (which struck down most state laws in the United States restricting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy). The NRLC was formed in 1968 under the auspices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) to coordinate information and strategy between emerging state antiabortion groups. The NCCB launched into a campaign to amend the United States Constitution with the enactment of a Human Life Amendment seeking not only to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, but to also forbid both Congress and the states from legalizing abortion within the United States.

In more recent years, states have passed a range of regulations regarding ultrasound procedures in order to gain more control over abortion care. Abortion rights opponents have promoted ultrasound viewing, believing that women who view their own ultrasound images are likely to be dissuaded from abortion. Abortion rights advocates, in contrast, routinely oppose these regulations, citing concerns that ultrasound viewing in the abortion context will be emotionally difficult for women.

In May of 2011, Texas passed a bill that women seeking an abortion will have to view a picture of the embryo or fetus and hear a description of its development before having the procedure. The law became effective on September 1. Despite the controversy, this bill in Texas easily passed through the state house and senate, both of which are controlled by