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

Please be precise: exactly what words did he "utter" in the debate that HRC and now you call appalling? I'm not after vague truisms, just trying to understand why you vilify Trump and glorify others over the same things.

>>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...

What baseless statement exactly, in the presidential debate we are talking about? If you're reverting back to the accusation of "rigged election" then even if he had said that in the debate: why is it saintly to say an election was hacked but demonic to say it is rigged?

>>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.

Who is posturing about her flaws? And the judge in PA said that the recount would have *undermined* democracy. I agree there's a lot of posturing and selective straw-manning going on.

>>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 premise was not as simplistic... as what? Certainly I agree that Wisconsin officials might have been concerned at the baseless claims about hacking and felt compelled to restore faith in the system, but that's not a vote of confidence in the so-called evidence. Seems to me that some people are quick to rear up in horror if Trump appears to cast doubt on the process, but then they do it themselves posturing as saints saving democracy- from their own baseless accusations.

>>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.

Not after officials show there's no plausible way the machines were hacked. You might like to review the full text of the savaging dished out by Judge Diamond in PA: the accusation was that results are tallied in a central computer that could be hacked... except that there's no such computer according to PA voting officials who also produced "compelling" evidence that the process could not possibly be hacked.

The judge said the accusation of hacking was handled in a prejudicial fashion and "borders on the irrational" based solely on "spectral fears;" I call it a crock. Since Wisconsin uses the same process, it was a crock there as well. My explanation is that people are kinder in Wisconsin and gave her her way rather than dishing out a judicial slap. The outcome was the same both ways, except PA was spared the hassle AND the risk that all PA voters could be disenfranchised if he granted the motion at such a late stage.

>>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.

Well, you might want to go and look at the actual statements by FBI and CIA including why they blame the Russians- because according to them, only a sovereign power is capable of hacking this effectively and they recognize patterns attributed to Russian-sponsored groups. Meanwhile the Republicans deny they were hacked, which is a crucial part of the interpretation that the intent was to damage HRC by only publishing one side of the hacked material. Wikileak's explanation was simpler: they couldn't publish evidence of Republican collusion and undermining of democracy because they had none, only HRC's. If that's true then the "crime" attributed to Russia is to find and publish evidence of collusion and bad behavior, not selective publication to hurt one side over another. Unless the FBI has better evidence that the Republicans were hacked, this isn't going anywhere.