They are exploring topics in ways and with people, like Gen. Michael Hayden, no one else in broadcast journalism will touch.

Scarborough just said something so amazing I had to run in from the kitchen to rewind to make sure I heard it right.   In the conversation with Hayden about what kinds of safeguards there are against crazy people getting their hands on the nuclear codes, there aren't many, he related a story.  I rewound to make sure I got the quote right.  I'm absolutely sure it will be up later.

".....um.....I'm.....uh, I have to follow up with that, and I'll be very careful here, (Stern look from Mica so this is probably her father we are talking about-speculation) several months ago a....uh....foreign policy..expert.  On the international level went to advise Donald Trump and three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons.   Three times he asked 'if we have them, why can't we use them?'  ......three times in a one hour briefing, why can't we use nuclear weapons.

Followed by a looooong and very uncomfortable pause for broadcast tv.

Then Scarborough asked Hayden what is the time frame.  From the time Trump decided to use nuclear weapons, how long before they are launched?

Hayden, it's dependent on the situation but it's a system that designed for speed and it's not designed to debate the decision.

No, really.  And calling it an intervention.  Good luck with that Reince.

This is from WaPo-

There is a rule, Rule 9, which spells out how a nominee can be replaced. But: "The rule is pretty clear about the conditions for filling a vacancy," Putnam writes. "The list is short: death, declination or otherwise. And let's be clear here: The rule is intended to fill vacancies, not to lay the groundwork for a replacement.
"Some have speculated that 'otherwise' is ambiguous. Taken out of context it is," he continued. "However, under the provisions for filling vacancies, it clearly fills in any gap between death and declination (i.e.: an incapacitating illness, but one that leaves the nominee neither dead nor able to decline to run further). And that was the intention." In other words, the only way Trump won't be the nominee is if he drops dead, falls into a coma or simply decides not to run.
It's not clear which of those is least likely. Probably the coma, just given the odds.

From an article titled something like "sorry, you are stuck with him.

I think thats true.

There is a theory that this whole thing actually reinforces his "fixed" meme.  And while it IMO certainly will not help him win, every day this goes on he is more of a hero to his insane supporters.  And will in all likelihood assist his creation of a Batsh!t media empire.

I just saw a guy who said "I've said he would have to kill some one but if he killed the right person, I would still vote for him"

Who do you think the "right person" would be?

This is where we are.

I don't say this often, but I think most people are smart enough to see through that kind of rhetoric when the bald facts are staring them in the face. No one is going to riot in the streets to make Trump the POTUS.

"I'm told that senior officials of the party are actively exploring what would happen if Trump dropped out.  How to replace him on the ballot'.... and the answer according to this is that the Repiblicsn National Committee can't force Trump out, he would have to drop out voluntarily then 168 RNC members would pick a new candidate.  They would have to do so by early Sept."