>>The appalling behavior invoked by HRC was the statement made by Trump that "the system is rigged" before any events took place,

It happened in a presidential debate when Trump (but not Clinton) was asked if he would accept the result of the election. He hedged, which HRC called "appalling" in the debate and subsequently in writing. E.g. "It's appalling that a presidential nominee of a major party is undermining the pillar of our democracy- just because he hates losing."

Well, if Trump is "appalling" and "horrifying" and "undermining democracy" if he didn't commit to accept the result- then so are all the hypocrites doing it themselves.

>>Apparently, the recount was warranted by the evidence (as circumstantial as it may be, that was not only claimed but also presented as such) that persuaded the WES (regardless of the credentials of the scientists) to call and execute the recount using a different method.

The recount was not because officials were persuaded by evidence, it was because Stein successfully filed and was not blocked by Federal judges as she was in 2 other states. She's entitled to a recount if she pays for it. The result of the recount was "no hacking."

>>The recount was done and the conclusion was made. I don't see where the democracy was undermined. On the contrary, I'd say it was exercised properly, strengthening the confidence in the system,as opposed to discrediting it with self fulfilling prophecies.

It was HRC who said democracy is undermined, not me. She cast refusal to accept the result as a mean-spirited act by somebody who hates losing. The recounts were forced by Stein who somehow managed to gather millions of dollars and presented her refusal to accept the result as a noble act- but the recount showed that the persuasive evidence of hacking, was a crock. The Russians did not cause the Wisconsin result.

When you drill into the data, the accusations of hacking are not the sort that can be detected by a recount. There are accusations that Russian-sponsored groups hacked Republican organizations and data repositories *which is denied by the Republicans* as well as blaming the Russians for giving Podesta's emails to Wikileaks that published them slowly. The suggestion is that releasing the Podesta material but not the Republican hacked material was damaging to HRC and "interfered" with the election. I can't find any statements that the elections themselves were hacked, but "interfered with." Last week Clinton's explanation was that Putin has a grudge against her after she previously called Russian elections "neither free nor fair" which Putin said was interfering in domestic Russian politics. Meanwhile lets not pretend that even if he did direct hacks himself, which he denies, Putin did not cause Podesta and other to write emails documenting collusion and conspiracy.