Why Trump Should Peacefully Protest Clinton’s Victory If There’s Evidence of Election Fraud

10/21/2016 05:43 am ET Updated Oct 21, 2016

If there’s evidence of election fraud on November 8th and Hillary Clinton wins, then Donald Trump has every right to peacefully contest the results. If cheated out of the presidency in the same manner Bernie Sanders was cheated by the DNC, Trump shouldn’t assemble an army of mercenaries nor should he push for civil war; media’s obsession with this narrative is laughable. Considering Ralph Nader is still reviled among loyal Democrats (308,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush in 2000), it’s hypocritical to condemn anyone for questioning the validity of election results. Furthermore, there are legal avenues for Trump to peacefully protest a Clinton victory, regardless of what outraged pundits say about American history and transition of power.

Madam Secretary will almost certainly win the White House, however 41% of voters believe the election could be stolen from Trump. In Ohio, Trump is still up according to Real Clear Politics and if he wins Florida, anything is possible. After the DNC’s treatment of Bernie Sanders and recent video evidence of general election irregularities, Trump might be justified in peacefully questioning results if the tally is closer than expected.

First, a recent WikiLeaks email sent to John Podesta in 2015 alludes to a repeat of prior election practices in Colorado:

They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $. They are not just Colorado focused and have good contacts in the region.

If indeed ineligible voters flood Colorado and “the region” during the general election, there would be an obvious need to address these concerns. Since the accuracy of WikiLeaks emails has never been denied by Hillary Clinton or John Podesta, it’s safe to assume that Democrats close to Clinton believed they were “reliving the 08 caucuses” where “Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters.” It’s not beyond reason to assume similar tactics could also be used on Election Day.

While Obama is said to have benefited in Colorado, David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign of confusing voters and cited “reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites” in Nevada that same year. Obama’s campaign manager in 2008 also stated “These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.” These tactics were repeated in 2016 against Bernie Sanders during the Democratic Primary.

Then of course there’s the fact five DNC officials were forced to resign after WikiLeaks emails showed immense bias against Bernie Sanders. It’s telling that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was eventually replaced by Donna Brazile, who is now engaged in another controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton. The subject of Brazile’s WikiLeaks email reads “From time to time I get the questions in advance.”

But these issues involve Democratic politics, how do they pertain to Trump on Election Day? Isn’t this just business as usual in American politics?

Clinton might have violated general election laws according to Michael Isikoff in a Yahoo piece titled Watchdog group accuses Clinton campaign of election law violations:

A nonpartisan watchdog group Thursday called for a federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee, accusing it of illegally accepting millions of dollars worth of “opposition research” and other assistance from Correct the Record, an outside super-PAC, in violation of U.S. election laws.
The Campaign Legal Center also filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission to initiate probes of Donald Trump’s campaign, and two super-PACs backing it, for similar violations of laws barring “coordination” between political campaigns and outside groups…
Correct the Record, which has taken in over $6 million in this campaign from hedge-fund executives, plaintiffs’ lawyers and other wealthy donors, has effectively become a “parallel shadow” arm of the Clinton campaign, said Larry Noble, who served for 13 years as the chief legal counsel for the FEC and is now chief counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. “They’re training people [for the Clinton campaign], they’re doing research for it. They’ve really pushed the envelope in this case, and ripped it open.”

No doubt, between H. A. Goodman and Tim Black, a great percentage of Correct the Record’s $1 million (raised to troll people online) was spent, and its coordination with Hillary Clinton’s campaign is potentially illegal. Any lawsuit filed by Trump, if he loses a close election, would include the issue of super-PACs working directly with Clinton’s campaign.

In addition to working alongside super-PACs, there’s the latest saga of two Democratic operatives losing their posts because of a leaked video. The Chicago Tribune explains the impact of this video in a piece titled Two local Democratic operatives lose jobs after video sting on voter fraud:

Robert Creamer, husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Scott Foval -- two little-known but influential Democratic political operatives -- have left their jobs after video investigations by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas Action found them entertaining dark notions about how to win elections.
Foval was laid off on Monday by Americans United for Change, where he had been national field director. Creamer announced Tuesday night that he was "stepping back" from the work he was doing for the unified Democratic campaign for Hillary Clinton.
… In them, Foval is filmed telling hidden-camera toting journalists about how they've disrupted Republican events; Foval also goes on at length about how an organization might cover up in-person voter fraud…

In this election, five DNC officials and two Democratic operatives have lost their jobs. The current DNC chair is now embroiled in controversy and one poll shows 31% of Democrats wanted the FBI to recommend indictments after Clinton’s email probe. It’s also shocking that DNC officials conspired in a WikiLeaks email to use a fake Craigslist ad aimed at smearing one of Donald Trump’s organizations. Along with several outlandish statements, DNC officials wrote female applicants must show “a willingness to evaluate other women’s hotness for the boss’ satisfaction.”

None of this is Vladimir Putin’s fault, as I explain with Walker Bragman in a Paste article titled If the Russians are Really Meddling in Our Election via Wikileaks, Can They Please Keep It Up?

While not linked directly to election laws, American media’s Orwellian allegiance to Hillary Clinton has many voters questioning the definition of journalism. The impact of recent WikiLeaks revelations is addressed by Lee Fang and Glenn Greenwald in an Intercept piece titled New Email Leak Reveals Clinton Campaign’s Cozy Press Relationship:

At times, Clinton’s campaign staff not only internally drafted the stories they wanted published but even specified what should be quoted “on background” and what should be described as “on the record.”
One January 2015 strategy document — designed to plant stories on Clinton’s decision-making process about whether to run for president — singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a “friendly journalist” who has “teed up” stories for them in the past and “never disappointed” them. Nick Merrill, the campaign press secretary, produced the memo, according to the document metadata…
Other documents listed those whom the campaign regarded as their most reliable “surrogates” — such as CNN’s Hilary Rosen and Donna Brazile, as well as Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden — but then also listed operatives whom they believed were either good “progressive helpers” or more potentially friendly media figures who might be worth targeting with messaging.
…The Clinton campaign likes to use glitzy, intimate, completely off-the-recordparties between top campaign aides and leading media personalities…

In addition to New York Times journalists, POLITICO has certain writers who’ve either engaged in “agreements” or actually given the Clinton campaign (“I will send u the whole section that pertains to u”) articles to review before publication. There’s also the possibility of a Bloomberg reporter working directly with Clinton’s campaign on an anti-Bernie Sanders story. As for The Washington Post, its relationship with Clinton’s campaign is akin to a public relations firm working on behalf of a client. As if allowing Clinton’s campaign to edit articles isn’t shocking enough, there’s the dinner party NBC’s Chuck Todd hosted for Clinton campaign officials.

Trump, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, and Gary Johnson certainly do not have this cozy relationship with American media.

As for WikiLeaks and Russia, I’ve explained numerous times that if The Washington Post and New York Times won’t investigate widespread political corruption, then Americans should be thankful Julian Assange is informing the public of these blatant assaults on democracy. From biased media to recently fired Democratic political operatives and embattled DNC chairs, the system seems to be rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. If Donald Trump loses a close election, and there’s evidence of election fraud or voting irregularities in key states, then he’s justified in a peaceful protest. As stated in recent McClatchy piece, presidential candidates are “free to publicly protest the results, ‘as long as they don’t incite violence.’”

This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.