>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, it happened as you say in a debate (before the election), when he uttered the words, and it was appalling.

>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.

Trump made that baseless statement as an answer to a question that didn't just come out of the blue; he had been making the "system is rigged" statement for a while before that debate. What's more concerning is that the man who's going to be the President made preemptive attempts to compromise the confidence in the electoral system. I'm not concerned about HRC's reputation. Whatever her motives, the recount led to restoring confidence. Posturing about her flaws is inconsequential at this point. Moreover, it is diverting attention from issues like the 2nd statement in this paragraph.

>>>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."

Yes, and that result is reassuring. However, the premise was not as simplistic. There was a lawsuit filed by Republicans to attempt the rejection of the recount in Wisconsin. That was blocked by a judge in Wisconsin with the explicit conclusion that the recount should continue. I agree with what appears to be that the Wisconsin recount was a test that may have counted in evaluating the merits of a recount in PA and MI. However, the Wisconsin recount was allowed in spite of efforts to block it. Somebody must have been persuaded by something, and I don't think it was the credentials of any scientist.

>
>>>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.

You may call it a crock, however, I still think that if you have a consistent pattern showing a meaningful difference between paper and electronic ballots, it should be reason enough for further investigation. That happened and the results were conclusive beyond the doubt raised by the original claim.

>
>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.

Like I said above; HRCs reputation is rather inconsequential at this point. Should I dismiss her statement that specifically Putin himself was involved because of a personal grudge against her? I'm not so sure that it is false, nor do I think it's that important in this context, so I can't comment any further. However, the accusations that foreign interference occurred are serious, especially now that both CIA and FBI are confirming them as substantive.
*