The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.

[DougMacG]

George Will:  Impeach the IRS COmmissioner

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/impeach-the-irs-director/2015/10/07/a3c3b024-6c57-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/10/12/gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article27951310.html

[Crafty_Dog]

http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/1740480/141-counties-u-s-registered-voters-living-residents/

[DougMacG]

New Minneapolis law, landlords have to provide voter registration package to tenants and tenants have to sign for receiving them, thanks to our local, so called, DFL.

Yet if the tenant does not mow, shovel or put garbage in their can, the landlord is held accountable.  The tenant is presumed to be not competent to be held as a responsible party.

I will give voting information to people who strike me as be well informed on all major issues.  Otherwise, someone else can give it to them.

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/inspections/rental/tenant_notifications

[ccp]

OMG.  Landlords have to provide voting registrations?   

How did Minnesota become such a Democ(rat) stronghold?

[G M]

New Minneapolis law, landlords have to provide voter registration package to tenants and tenants have to sign for receiving them, thanks to our local, so called, DFL.

Yet if the tenant does not mow, shovel or put garbage in their can, the landlord is held accountable.  The tenant is presumed to be not competent to be held as a responsible party.

I will give voting information to people who strike me as be well informed on all major issues.  Otherwise, someone else can give it to them.

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/inspections/rental/tenant_notifications

Are you being compensated for your time and effort? I thought the civil war ended involuntary servitude.

[DougMacG]

Good point.  The Obama blockworkers get good money for the same work.

[Crafty_Dog]

By Bradley Smith
Jan. 29, 2016 5:58 p.m. ET
181 COMMENTS

Hillary Clinton has tons of cash, but she can’t shake off Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump keeps threatening to spend his own money, but he hasn’t had to use much of it. He’s leading the Republican field, feasting on free media coverage, while spending a fraction of what his rivals, and super PACs promoting them, have spent. If his rivals hadn’t been able raise large sums the GOP race would probably be over—Mr. Trump’s celebrity, name recognition and charisma would already have carried the day.

Apparently oblivious to the failure of “big money” to dictate the race, the goo-goos—the good-government crowd—have cranked up the same theme they use every election year. “We must,” they say, “have campaign finance reform.” We must “get money out of politics.” The Supreme Court must reverse its 2010 decision in Citizens United and allow “reasonable” regulation of campaign finance.

But what would “reasonable” regulation actually look like? Well, we have an idea, because once, not that long ago, Congress passed “reasonable” regulation.

Saturday marks the 40th anniversary of one of the most momentous Supreme Court decisions: Buckley v. Valeo. In Buckley, the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that threatened core First Amendment freedoms. The 1976 decision is as important to democracy as 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education is to education and civil rights. Its anniversary is a time for reflection on what might lie ahead if “reformers” get their way.

Many Americans vaguely favor “campaign finance reform.” It is only when such reform gets specific that people realize—often too late—that they themselves are the targets of that reform.

Consider the law that Buckley struck down. The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 limited spending by candidates, even though there is substantial evidence—including a 2011 study in the Journal of Politics by Chris W. Bonneau and Damon M. Cann—that limits on campaign spending benefit incumbents. Buckley struck down those limits.

The 1974 FECA Amendments also capped citizens’ election spending—just $1,000 on communications (about $4,800 adjusted for inflation) “relative to” a candidate was allowed. This limit applied to political-action committees, to individuals and to groups like the Humane Society and National Rifle Association. Unions and businesses were prohibited from spending money to voice opinions “in connection with” an election.

Another provision limited how much groups could spend or contribute “for the purpose of influencing” elections without first registering with, and reporting the names of their members to, the government.

By the time Buckley was filed in 1975, the Nixon administration had already used the law’s vague language to prosecute a group of citizens who bought an ad in the New York Times calling for Nixon’s impeachment.

Buckley struck down these provisions of the law.

Imagine a world in which citizens are prohibited from spending their own money to voice and distribute their political opinions on issues and candidates separately from those candidates’ own campaigns. A world in which challengers are prohibited from spending enough to inform voters about why incumbents should be voted out of office; and where unions and trade groups are prohibited from spending money to explain how election results might affect members, employees or the economy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1975 upheld these provisions of the law. In a remarkable opinion, it said that “reforms” should not be rejected merely “because they might have some incidental, not yet defined effect on First Amendment freedoms.” Protecting free speech, the court said, was like Aesop’s famous dog “losing his bone going after its deceptively larger reflection in the water.”

Buckley brought the worst of this madness to a halt. The Supreme Court noted that “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed to . . . assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.”

The court struck down the limitations on what citizens and the organizations they belong to could spend to voice political views “relative to” candidates. Had Buckley not been decided as it was, virtually all political information today would have to be filtered through officeholders, politicians and the institutional press, with ordinary citizens as mere bystanders.

Some claim that Buckley held that money is speech—but that’s not quite right. What the court recognized is that by limiting money you can limit an activity. Limit what you may spend on fuel, and your right to travel freely is restricted. Limit what can be spent to express political views, and you limit the reach of those views and the number of people who will hear them.

Unfortunately, the court in Buckley upheld some provisions of the law. Thus the government still demands information on Americans’ political associations when they open their wallets. Contributions to candidates and parties remain subject to low limits that reduce the number of viable challengers, force officeholders to spend more time raising funds, and restrict the ability of citizens to directly support a candidate’s campaign. But absent Buckley’s core holding—that Americans have a right to spend their own money to voice their own opinions—true democracy would be pretty much unimaginable.

Mr. Smith is the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics. He previously was chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/des-moines-register-calls-for-full-audit-of-democrat-caucuses/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[ccp]

good luck with that.  "what difference does it make?"   

Six straight coin toss wins - someone pointed out the odds of that are 64 to 1.

Where did these coins come from - Vegas or Atlantic City?

[ccp]

Yet the MSM of course doesn't care:

HOROWITZ: OBAMA MAKING SURE NON-CITIZENS VOTE
By: Daniel Horowitz | February 22, 2016
February 9: Voters fill out their ballots for the 2016 New Hampshire primary in voting booths at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, NH on February 9, 2016. Congressional Quarterly | AP Phot
 

While everyone is focused on the fisticuffs of this acrimonious primary, Obama is trying to build a firewall of illegal voters to ensure Democrat victory during the general election.  Through endless immigration, Democrats have already created a high floor of electoral support that is creeping ever closer to a permanent majority.  Now, they are trying tip the balance by stopping states from blocking non-citizens from voting.
Hans von Spakovsky, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation, sounded the alarm over the weekend concerning the latest effort to block voter integrity:
On February 12, these groups filed a lawsuit in D.C. federal court seeking to reverse a recent decision by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Commission’s decision allows Kansas and other states, including Arizona and Georgia, to enforce state laws ensuring that only citizens register to vote when they use a federally designed registration form. An initial hearing in the case is set for Monday afternoon, February 22.
Under federal law, the EAC is responsible for designing the federal voter-registration form required by the National Voter Registration Act, or Motor Voter, as it is commonly called. While states must register voters who use the federal form, states can ask the EAC to include instructions with the federal form about additional state registration requirements. Some states are now requiring satisfactory proof of citizenship to ensure that only citizens register to vote.
Hans goes on to explain how the Obama Justice Department, instead of defending this federal agency, has joined with left wing outside groups to attack the EAC and voter integrity.  In the most egregious and unethical behavior ever from a Justice Department, they are stripping the EAC of its independent power to work with states to protect the franchise.  Just this morning the DOJ consented to the injunction against the EAC.  It is unprecedented for an administration to agree with those suing a federal agency!The hearing before D.C. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon is this afternoon and we will stay on top of the details because this will affect the outcome of our elections.
Once again, we must ask why is the future of our franchise being decided by unelected courts?
Remember, there are over 23 million non-citizens residing in this country on a permanent basis.  In 2014, three prominent political scientists conducted a study of non-citizens voting and found that up to 6.4% of all non-citizens participated in the 2008 elections and roughly 14% are eligible to vote.  This means that over 3 million non-citizens are registered to vote and roughly 1.4 million non-citizens voted in 2008. Over 80% of these illegal votes were cast for Democratic candidates, according to this study.
Professors Richman, Chattha, and Earnest concluded that non-citizens voting was enough to deliver North Carolina to Obama.  More importantly, “non-citizen votes have also led to Democratic victories in congressional races including a critical 2008 Senate race that delivered for Democrats a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.”  That race, of course, was the Minnesota Senate seat “won” by Al Franken by a margin of 312 votes.  This report estimates that at least 3,000 votes cast in Minnesota were from non-citizens.  There were also a number of other Senate races decided by a margin of one or two percentage points over the past few cycles.


Hence, Obamacare was passed illegitimately.
As Teddy Roosevelt once said, “[T]here is no enemy of free government more dangerous and none so insidious as the corruption of the electorate.”
Once again, we must ask why is the future of our franchise being decided by unelected courts?  Where is Congress in upholding the integrity of the elections that allow them to represent the sovereign citizen?   
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/obama-making-sure-non-citizens-vote#sthash.pkSyQfne.dpuf

[ccp]

What a business.  Former Romeny (3 time loser) forms PAC gets tons of money to spend getting Trump and only God knows how much for herself.  Folks I am in the wrong business.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/23/former-romney-staffer-frustrated-circulates-three-page-memo-against-donald-trump/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432182/noncitizen-voting-lawsuit-justice-department

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/elias-online-voting-are-the-doomsayers-right/

[DougMacG]

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/elias-online-voting-are-the-doomsayers-right/

Why wouldn't you make it easier to vote?

This is one reason why easier to vote isn't better.

Another case where the liberal view needs answering or else the young and impressionable fall prey to the other side.  Explaining these things once every four years isn't how how you compete either when the other side has total control K-12, the colleges and the media.

You vote in private, but you may have to come out in front of your neighbors and show your ID to do so.

Early voting is turning into a bad thing too.  It used to be that you needed a reason to vote absentee.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/in-order-to-save-america-we-must-legally-prevent-oblivious-people-from-voting/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/is_democrat_voting_a_vast_criminal_conspiracy.html 

[ccp]

Well wouldn't Democrat Party scabs say this,

'See we told you that forcing people to have voter IDs will suppress votes and disenfranchise people!'

Having done work at the nursing homes and seeing so many patients who are totally unaware of elections and many who have no visitors has made me wonder if it is not a frequent event for people to vote in their name.  And I have little doubt Republicans would be so inclined to do this.

Did anyone notice how the vote number spread in Michigan between Clinton and Sanders seemed to get narrower and narrower.  Gee, coincidence?

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.facebook.com/anonews.co/videos/1186027391408818/

[DougMacG]

In response to all the complaints about big money in politics, i.e. free speech, less than we spend promoting laundry soap, it needs to be noted that $500 million plus has already been wasted on candidates that are no longer running while the frontrunners get all kinds of attention without spending that kind of money.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://time.com/4266176/campaign-finance-republican-donors-congress/
So far, donors have funneled more than $520 million collectively into campaigns and outside groups supporting Republican presidential candidates who have now dropped out — and the primaries are far from over.

[Crafty_Dog]

 

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/california-allows-illegal-aliens-to-vote-so-each-potus-ballot-should-be-disqualified/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/10/12/gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/

[DDF]

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/10/12/gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/

 

[Crafty_Dog]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/28/obama-admin-funds-blitz-to-naturalize-anti-trump-voters/

[ccp]

Hat tip to Mark Levin's Conservative Review.  About 35 % of the electoral votes are from states that would not allow Trump to run (in those states) due to "sore loser" laws.  That is to prevent someone who ran in the primary from running in a third party.  I never knew this.  So Trump could go 3rd party but only in states that would total about 65% of the electoral college:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/trump-independent-bid-all-but-impossible

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-hack-an-election/

[Crafty_Dog]

Supreme Court Brings Back To Three-Fifths Slavery Formula
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on April 5, 2016
The Supreme Court decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, harkens back to how our original Constitution enshrined slavery in power until the Civil War.

The Evenwel decision holds that states may apportion districts -- and presumably Congress can apportion Congressional representation -- based on total population rather than based on those actually eligible to vote.  So now illegal immigrants, who cannot vote, are counted equally with voters in allocating legislative representation.

There is a terrible analogy between the Evenwel decision and the infamous three-fifths rule that was adopted to determine slave representation in the House of Representatives.

At the original Constitutional Convention, the northern and southern states wrangled over how to count slaves -- who could not vote -- in allocating congressional districts to the states.  The South wanted its voting power enhanced so slave states could come closer to a majority in the House of Representatives and have more electoral votes in choosing a president (electoral votes are allocated by adding the number of senators and congressmen from each state).

The northern states relented and agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person in apportioning legislative seats.  The South and the slave interest benefited enormously from the compromise.

So, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Evenwel, illegal immigrants are to be the modern equivalent of slaves in proportioning representation in Congress.  Like slaves, these illegal immigrants cannot vote.  But they are now to be counted in determining how many seats in Congress each state gets.  These phantom voters have no more right to influence the composition of our Congress than the slaves did -- unless and until they can vote.

As Gary Willis explains in his book Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power (2003), the distortions caused by the three-fifths rule permitted the slave power to remain in ascendency.  The Southern slave states had 47 House members in 1793 -- under the three-fifths rule -- while they should have had only 33.  By 1812, they had 76 but should have been entitled to only 59.  By 1833, they had 98 as opposed to the 73 they should have had. 

Willis calls Jefferson the "Negro President" because it was the extra electoral votes that came from the three-fifths rule that let Jefferson eek past President John Adams in the electoral college in the election of 1800. In that contest, Jefferson won with 73 electoral votes to Adams' 65.  But had the Electoral College votes only reflected vote eligible citizens, and excluded the three-fifths rule, Adams would have won.

This odious comparison illustrates the injustice of using illegal immigrants to apportion power but not giving them a voice in how it is used.  Either make them citizens and count their votes or leave them out of apportionment.

[ccp]

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/felons-voting-rights-history/2015/04/16/id/638889/

[G M]

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/felons-voting-rights-history/2015/04/16/id/638889/

Name the party that pushes felons to vote.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/19/474896027/after-more-than-100-000-voters-dropped-in-brooklyn-city-officials-call-for-actio

[ccp]

Is Bernie stupid or what?  Does he really think complaining to the DNC is going to get a legitimate response?  And what a gigantic blunder for him to let Clinton off the hook with the emails.  May not have made a difference but it might have.  Definitely a shmoe, and I think shmegegi fits too.  Who the hell would want this fool negotiating for the United States?  What a dope.

This fits Bernie:  "Shmo(e) - Naive person, easy to deceive; a goof (Americanism)"
"Shmegegi - Buffoon, idiot, fool"

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/19/judge-napolitano-bernie-sanders-accuses-hillary-clinton-violating-finance-laws

[DougMacG]

ccp:  "Is Bernie stupid or what? 

   - To be an American socialist in 2016, yes, stupid, ignorant or dishonest.  I suspect all three.  Might add hypocrite to that.

"What a gigantic blunder for him to let Clinton off the hook with the emails."

   - Isn't that the truth!  His strategic concern for himself and the careful positioning of his pretend challenge to her then was bigger than any real security concern for the country that her blunder created.  Now it turns out that being honest might have been better, even for a Democrat. Who knew?

[ccp]

Returning the Clinton gang into power.  Sad Virginia , because of the Northern part turned liberal (the DC crowd) and that sleaze is now governor.  Some sleaze balls never go away:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/virginia-governor-restores-voting-rights-200k-felons-154622727.html?nhp=1

[ccp]

"Get out of jail free" cards being issued by Democrat party.  Well not exactly but they are trying to free them all, and give them voting cards

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/06/report-leftist-groups-registered-two-thousand-virginia-felons-to-vote-in-two-weeks/

[G M]

"Get out of jail free" cards being issued by Democrat party.  Well not exactly but they are trying to free them all, and give them voting cards

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/06/report-leftist-groups-registered-two-thousand-virginia-felons-to-vote-in-two-weeks/

Dems will dominate the felon, illegal alien and deceased voting blocs.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-decertifies-baltimore-election-results-investigates-irregularities/2016/05/12/fca6e128-1861-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html

[ccp]

Anyone see a pattern where such voter fraud always seems to turn up?

[Crafty_Dog]

 
The Zombie Voter Apocalypse: California Refuses to Admit Its Voter Fraud Problem
Hans von Spakovsky / Jana Minich / May 26, 2016

Hollywood has always loved making films about the walking dead, but in Southern California it appears they have a real life problem with “zombie” voters.
An investigation by CBSLA2 and KCAL9 found that hundreds of deceased persons are still on voter registration rolls in the area, and that many of these names have been voting for years in Los Angeles.

For example, John Cenkner died in 2003, according to Social Security Administration records, yet he voted in the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections. His daughter told the station that she was “astounded” and couldn’t “understand how anybody” could get away with this.

Another voter, Julita Abutin, died in 2006 but voted in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014. According to CBS, the county confirmed they have “signed vote-by-mail envelopes” from Abutin since she passed away. So either someone has been forging her signature or her ghost has quite an earthly presence.
The investigation revealed that 265 deceased persons voted in Southern California, 215 of them in Los Angeles County. Thirty-two were repeat voters, with eight posthumously-cast ballots each. One woman who died in 1988 has been voting for 26 years, including in the 2014 election.

This report comes 20 years after the contested election of Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., from this same area. An investigation by a U.S. House committee found that hundreds of illegal ballots were cast by noncitizens and improper absentee ballots.

In that 1996 election, when she defeated incumbent Bob Dornan, a winning margin of 979 votes was whittled down to only 35 votes or fewer when that voter fraud was factored in. In cases like these, where elections are decided by only a small number of votes, the harmful effects of voter fraud are most obvious.

Yet here, two decades later, California has still not taken the necessary steps to ensure the reliability of its electoral system.

As a result of the investigation, Los Angeles County supervisors called for an investigation into the findings. Even if these particular zombie voters did not change the outcome of an election, each fraudulently cast ballot stole and diluted the vote of a legitimate voter.

Cases like these and many others show that voter fraud is a real phenomenon and a potential threat to the integrity of the election process.

The Los Angeles County Registrar pointed to the 1200 to 2000 voter registrations removed every month to update records and told reporters, “There’s really no way to connect a person whose death is recorded with a person who is registered to vote unless we get some kind of notification from the family.”
But that is plain nonsense. Other states do frequent comparisons between their voter registration lists and the death databases maintained by the Social Security Administration, and other state agencies consult vital records departments in order to remove voters who have died.

The CBS investigation shows both that voter fraud exists and that this type of fraudulent voting is detectable through proper investigation.

CBS reports that California is the only state that does not comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, something the Obama administration has basically ignored.

The Help America Vote Act establishes mandatory minimum standards of accuracy for state voter registration lists and requires states to engage in regular maintenance and updates to remove ineligible voters who die or move away.

California is obviously not complying with these requirements.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/14/judicial-watch-sues-to-block-mcauliffes-order-granting-felons-voting-rights/

[ccp]

"The real question is whether that same wealthy minority which is influencing bookie odds will also be able to manipulate the final Referendum outcome in less than 24 hours."

Yup.  We will never know.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-22/something-strange-emerges-when-looking-behind-brexit-bookie-odds

[G M]

"The real question is whether that same wealthy minority which is influencing bookie odds will also be able to manipulate the final Referendum outcome in less than 24 hours."

Yup.  We will never know.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-22/something-strange-emerges-when-looking-behind-brexit-bookie-odds

Remember what Stalin said about voting.

[ccp]

What did he say about voting?

[G M]

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.-Joseph Stalin


Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/josephstal109571.html

[ccp]

Late surge for remain.  Like with all of Hillary's close votes against sanders.  She miraculously always came out on top.

Looks like globalists will "win" again - damn!

[Crafty_Dog]

http://observer.com/2016/06/debbie-wasserman-schultz-served-class-action-lawsuit-for-rigging-primaries/

[ccp]

Pros and cons:

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=1319

[Crafty_Dog]

The American Autumn
Posted: 28 Jul 2016 03:49 PM PDT

Some thinking you might find useful.  It might sound wild and remote, but we are in a wild and out of control year.  ANYTHING can happen.
A treasure trove of e-mail and voicemail messages from the Democratic National Committee has been leaked.  Here's what happened.

   The first installment of the leaked e-mails was released by Wikileaks at the start of the DNC convention.  More leaks have and will follow.

   The contents of the leak show a brazen attempt by the DNC to help Hillary win the primary.  It also shows Dem campaign staffers to have acted inappropriately and in a prejudiced manner.

   Based on forensic analysis of the leak, it appears that the Russian government is involved
The effects of the leak have been immediate and intense.

   The leak provided the confirmation to Sanders supporters that the primary was rigged against them.  This has led to intense protests both within and outside the convention.  This suggests that the Clinton campaign lost a large number of Bernie supporters forever.

   The media and the US government reaction to the leak has been aggressive.  They claim that the release is a brazen attempt by Putin to influence the US election by helping Trump win. There have been attempts by the media to tie Trump to Putin but those lack evidence of any connection.

   Further, now that the Russian have interfered in our election, it's possible that they will do again.  This could be done through more leaks or as Bruce Schneier has pointed out: a hack of poorly secured voting machines on election day.  
Where could this end up?  This is the interesting part.  This election isn't a normal election.  It is also a good demonstration of something the great scholar of warfare, Martin van Creveld said ~ if you fight barbarians long enough, you become a barbarian too.

   The Trumpification of the Establishment >>  Trump isn't running a campaign, he's running an open source insurgency (see my earlier article on this) that makes him nearly immune to personal attack, and it is working.  He has secured a whopping 7 points (47 to 40) lead over Clinton in a recent national poll by the LA Times/USC -- despite the fact that nearly EVERYONE in the media, academic, government, and political establishment is working against him.  This loss of control has infuriated the establishment, leading to increasing levels of paranoia, hyperbole, and anger (particularly in the media).  In short, the establishment is starting to act increasingly like Trump does -- exaggerating and amplifying everything.

   Intentional Electoral Disruption.   The potential threat of Russian hacking (voting machines, etc.) fits the scenario I outlined in my freakishly popular US Civil War article from earlier this year.  With the tension between the divisions in the country increasing rapidly as both sides amplify and exaggerate every event, any overt attempt to rig (through disruption or hacking) the outcome of the election could result in widespread violence and/or a national fracture.

   The Administrative 'Coup'.  Here's something that I didn't think possible until this week.  The Trumpified establishment might have found an avenue for disqualifying Trump as President:  Trump's rhetorical suggestion that Russian hackers should find Hillary's deleted e-mails.  This has led many people in the establishment to contend that Trump committed 'treason and is now a clear and present danger to the security of the US.'  This national security angle -- the overt interference by Russia in US governance -- could make it possible to block Trump as a candidate on national security grounds.
 

[Crafty_Dog]

second post

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/26/1552616/-Russian-Hackers-Altered-Emails-Before-Release-to-Wikileaks