>>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.

Back in 2016 I pointed you to an exact e-mail exchange between a Clinton campaign agent being asked to reach out to a governor in Connecticut I believe it was to specifically request that they reduce the number of polling places from 400 some odd location down to 30 the help make it more difficult for persons to cast their votes. The exchange essentially when that they had an inside with the governor and should be able to make something happen. There was even a linked article afterwards about the public outcry the day after about the public upset that there were closures and odd hours. THAT ran true to me too because that happened to me in NYC too where I was redirected and then told to use a provisional ballot because my name wasn't on the list (though I had voted in NYC since 2012 with no issues).

>>- 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?

The scandalous reveal was specifically about the money for speeches, and her having to tell people paying her that they should not worry because things said in her stances would never happen. Seeing her money from Pharma and Wall Street, and then coming out and being ADAMANTLY against $15 and hour and M4A (two of the most popular agenda issues today) show her political compromise.

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

I am not a child. I know it exist. But I rather his concessions than hers if for no other reason than he has decades of a voting and public record aligned with my own thoughts as opposed to hers.

>>- 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?

That was easily the Main Stream Media. ATT/Time Warner were a HUGE contributor to her campaign as she was going to help massage the anti trust to help them merge. Giving those ties, plus Boeing and MS/NBC and her pro war stance, it was a match made in heaven. On the night Sanders pulled 20,000 people to a rally in the BRONX on 2 hours notice I came home to CNN and MSNBC not talking about it at all and having a camera fixed on Trump's empty podium. They elevated Trump as a candidate specifically to have him oppose Clinton in the general as the more favorable candidate.

>>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.

I definitely agree that the press used it for view$, but my point is the same people claiming hacks are the same ones giving her a pass for being hackable. Just saying.

>>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.

Correct.

>> - 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.

I was asking how people are saying "Russia hacked her" vs Comey's decision that she was "hackable" but said people are willing to allow the latter and not the former. I haven't been able to grasp how people forgive action that could lead to the thing they feel broke the election. Just pointing out that none of the backlash has come back on her for making herself and her time as SOS that vulnerable, though we agree that they/she were NOT hacked. It was a local download then turned over to WikiLeaks for auditing and later publishing.

Everything else around Russia can just be chalked up to international affairs at this point because the US does the same shit and puts citizens in a situation to be victimized when it isn't even representative of our overall agenda.