>That is BS, I have personally replied to you before on this
>exact question. Just off the top of my head:
>
>- there are e-mails with coordination to direct powers in
>state and local government during the primary to influence
>manipulation of the number of open poll places, hours of
>operation, and number of voting machines.

Care to cite any? I remember chatter about this from TYT-types, but it never went anywhere.

>- the flip flop of inner-Clinton campaign communication
>showing her "public/private" positions which came back to bite
>her when she was all but saying that the "concessions" she
>made during the Convention weren't really going to change her
>platform or agenda.

Wait, so the scandalous reveal is that she was a smart politician who, like any other, knows how to make persuasive and nuanced statements?

If you think Bernie Sanders didn't have "private" positions that occasionally conflicted with his "public" positions, you're fooling yourself.

>- the willful propping up of Trump from party insiders as they
>knew that would be the best favorable matchup with Clinton
>because she was so unpopular.

I don't know how you think they were able to "prop up" anybody in the Republican race. (Maybe it's an extension of the powers they also don't have, to prop up someone in the Democratic race.) But anyway, what does this have to do with ANYTHING in the Democratic primary?

>And that's just a start. However, if the e-mails are so
>innocuous and had no bearing then how did their release harm
>her campaign?

Because the press used it to drive a salacious, though ultimately empty, scandal. Also key in this is that certain supposedly progressive people were misled (in part by Russian propaganda) into thinking there was evidence of corruption in these emails.

>Aside for the obvious juxtaposition that she was
>under scrutiny for having a hackable private e-mail server,
>which she had to defend as a prudent decision, only to then
>turn around a cry victim that she was allegedly hacked

She was not hacked, by the way. The DNC is an independent organization. Podesta's account was Gmail. Both of these were results of phishing scams, not any inherent server vulnerability.

> - I
>have yet to see how people reconcile that sequence of events
>and the Comey outcome and have it ring true to them, but you
>would be able to explain that one better than me.

I don't know what you're asking at this point. Maybe your conspiracy theories are tying you in knots.