Of course all this assumes that the Electoral College elector is "faithful" and votes for the person he/she is pledged to vote for.  Really, nothing to prevent an Electoral College elector from saying "Screw this, I'm not voting for x, I'm voting for y."  An interesting check against the people going against the establishment and popularly electing a [doofus | criminal].  The house always wins.

I knew of a couple faithless electors, but hadn't realized there were so many cases of that happening in U.S. electoral history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

A couple cases with the most such faithless electors (not including cases where a candidate died):

• 1832 election: Two National Republican Party electors from the state of Maryland refused to vote for presidential candidate Henry Clay and did not cast a vote for him or for his running mate. All 30 electors from Pennsylvania refused to support the Democratic vice presidential candidate Martin Van Buren, voting instead for William Wilkins.
• 1836 election: The 23 electors from Virginia were pledged to vote for Democratic candidates Martin Van Buren (for President) and Richard Mentor Johnson (for Vice President). However, they abstained from voting for Johnson, because of his open (and therefore scandalous) liaison with a slave mistress. This left Johnson with one fewer than a majority of electoral votes. Johnson was subsequently elected Vice President by the Senate.
  

Since Clinton kept her speeches secret (except from excerpts from wikileaks) that's a bit hard to do.  And the people that heard those speeches aren't talking either.

That makes it possible to claim Clinton said all sorts of things under the guise of plausibility.

Why is that sort of bogus attack even being done when there is supportable material against her that is actually more damning? Bogus attacks water down the damning material.

Since when does the FBI need to go to Congress in order to get a warrant?

They don't. I was trying to keep my post short and may have garbled what I meant. What I meant to say is that the act of getting a warrant for the Clinton related emails would have very likely become public before election day and congress would then have complained they weren't notified as promised.

The FBI would need an additional warrant. Here's why:

First, it seems that while examining the emails on Anthony Weiner's computer, the agents came across Huma Abedin emails to and/or from the Clinton private server. While the FBI may have had a warrant to search for emails specific to his communications with a 15 year old girl, once they see evidence of a crime outside the warrant that allowed their search, it appears that while they can use the first such email they find of the new crime, they can't go looking for any more emails related to that new crime until they first get another warrant specific to it. Here's a copy-and-paste from page 36 of https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/14/ssmanual2009.pdf, which is a DoJ guide to handling computer searches during criminal investigations:

As  agents  review  a computer for information that falls within the scope of the warrant, they may discover evidence of an additional crime, and they are entitled to seize it under the  plain  view  doctrine.  Nevertheless,  the Tenth  Circuit’s  decision  in United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268, 1273 (10th Cir. 1999), provides a cautionary example regarding continuing the review of a computer after finding evidence of  a  second  crime.  In Carey,  a  police  detective  searching  a  hard  drive  with  a warrant for drug trafficking evidence opened a “jpg” file and instead discovered child pornography. At that point, the detective spent five hours accessing and downloading  several  hundred  “jpg”  files  in  a  search  not  for  evidence  of  the narcotics trafficking that he was authorized to seek and gather pursuant to the original warrant, but for more child pornography. When the defendant moved to  exclude  the  child  pornography  files  on  the  ground  that  they  were  seized beyond  the  scope  of  the  warrant,  the  government  argued  that  the  detective had seized the “jpg” files properly because the contents of the contraband files were in plain view. The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument with respect to all of the files except for the first “jpg” file the detective discovered. Seeid. at 1273, 1273 n.4. As best as can be discerned, the rule in Carey seems to be that the detective could seize the first “jpg” file that came into plain view when the detective was executing the search warrant, but could not rely on the plain view exception to justify the search solely for additional “jpg” files containing child pornography on the defendant’s computers, evidence beyond the scope of the warrant. In subsequent cases, the Tenth Circuit has interpreted Carey narrowly, explaining that it “simply stands for the proposition that law enforcement may not expand the scope of a search beyond its original justification.”

Wow, five people throwing away their vote for Johnson?  That surprises me.

The Libertarian party needs at least 5% of the vote to qualify for public funding (whether they would or should accept it is another debate.)

Also, the higher the percentage they get the more psychological "Social Proof" they get (see Robert Cialdini's principles of persuasion.)

So each vote for Johnson actually does help the long term prospects of libertarianism.

Lastly "Social Proof" is the bedrock on which the current system resides - a person is expected to choose based on what other people are choosing, not on any other criteria. It is a classic Catch-22 system. Ironically, if publicly reported poll results don't exist when a person who buys into "social proof" is asked to decide, all their options could potentially throw away their vote. Pity them.

I really don't know what charges they were accused of, nor what evidence was presented against them.  So I cannot buy into a charge of jury nullification.

Looks like there is a wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy) and it says "Bundy was charged with a total of three offenses: conspiracy to impede officers of the United States by force, intimidation, or threats; possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in federal facilities; and using and carrying firearms in relation to a crime of violence. The latter offense carries a possible life sentence."

Later on "Judge Brown dismissed one of two firearms charges against Bundy and seven other militants, finding that the underlying conspiracy charge does not meet the legal definition of a "crime of violence" as defined by Ninth Circuit case law."

Wikipedia article ends with:
"On October 27th 2016, Ammon Bundy was found not guilty of firearms charges and conspiracy to impede federal workers."

The  oregonlive.com article in my earlier post has some info on some of the defense, but what arguments were made for and against the conspiracy to impede federal workers isn't mentioned there. It may be that the Feds case wasn't factually convincing.

I would have expected an urban-drawn Portland jury to be more sympathetic to the government's case. (I presume that's where the trial took place.)

Yeah, definite case of jury nullification. I guess the defense lawyers and the Bundy boys did a heck of a good job to elicit that kind of result.

Edited to add this link into the strategies of the lawyers on both sides (written before the verdict was known, and interesting to see now how the defense strategy paid off):
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/legal_experts_weigh_in_on_ammo.html

Where does it say "the right to bear sensible arms shall not be infringed.

Every time I have said that the 2nd amendment is vague, someone comes back and says "what is so vague about "shall not be infringed".

Well, take a careful read of the First Amendment and explain how laws against fraud and libel are considered constitutional when the plain text seems to exclude their existence? Or that FCC regulations on the content of broadcasts (e.g. profanity, nudity)  don't per se violate it?

As I see it, the same process has been used against most of the amendments. Often starting from before the constitution was even written.