>>If that makes you feel better, go ahead and believe what you want to.

Don't do that. Why would it make me feel better one way or another? An assertion is made that deserves to be validated. I'm aware that people make all these extravagant claims against both Clinton and Trump but if it's so true- then why was she not charged? The size of conspiracy required for the allegation to include law enforcement and exchange and prosecution services, is too big to last this long. Somebody would have blabbed.

My pick is that HRC probably was given special advice- which is legal- and that she traded successfully while the market was mostly rising. Which any idiot can do, FWIW. Ask the bankers prior to the crash they caused. Then HRC stepped away at the perfect time. Of her two advisors who kept trading, I understand that one ended up losing $15M and the other was bankrupt. Which is what happens when your winning streak ends and you double down to recoup your losses. HRC's "fault" may simply be that she was lucky, and has more reason to be grateful to her daughter than most parents. I agree that your version also may be true, that this was a contrivance to transfer $ to her. But then we're back to an elaborate conspiracy that usually can't survive this long.

Who knows? Meanwhile Assange keeps saying that there's "the big reveal" yet to come against HRC.

The other point of note, is that Trump has been rising again in the polls. He has the benefit of simply trying to win every episode, while HRC tries to defend her lead and run down the clock- both of which tactics annoy the electorate, fwiw. If Trump keeps entertaining and landing hits- sheesh, he's back in the race IMHO when just days ago he was written off as a Billy Bunter loser to Clinton's overwhelming triumph.