>>At the debate, the question was about these very statements that he's been making, and when asked if he'd accept the election results he said: “I will look at it at the time, I will keep you in suspense.... isn't that a clear attempt to discredit any possible unfavorable results?

The "rigging" he referred to, was voter fraud and media collusion against him. Wikileaks subequently confirmed media collusion, even to the point of HRC being given prior access to CNN presidential debate questions. That undoubtedly was rigged and IMHO it subverts democracy to allow voters to believe it's a balanced debate when one side gets the script in advance. This casual provision and receiving of unfair advantage, would have offended many honorable folk who don't approve of rigging. Then on election day, Trump was concerned at reports that some voting machines were converting Trump votes to HRC which was recorded on video. Is that unreasonable if you can see a voter stabbing again and again at the Trump button but the machine insists on recording a vote for HRC?

So here's my question for you: if it's noble to talk about Russians hacking voting machines based on what a judge called "spectral fears," why is it so evil for Trump to express similar concerns confirmed by actual Wikileaks and images?

>>Now, my question to you is, why do you subject HRC to the high moral standard, and yet give Trump a free pass? Moreover, why would you imply there is a moral equivalency between his attempt to discredit the potential results before the election, and her attempt to question the actual results after?

I'm not subjecting HRC to anything since it was Stein who filed for recounts. My point is that Trump said he *might not* accept the result and was vilified; now people are filing groundless federal suits to challenge the result and they are treated like saints by others who don't like the result.

As for moral equivalency: you're right, it's far worse to try to disrupt a result based on ideas that "border on irrational" and "spectral fears" according to the judge who reviewed both sides closely in PA.

>>If it's Judge Diamond you're referring to, then I have not seen, nor do I believe that the judge made the statement about "undermining democracy" that you're quoting. From what I've read it looks like the judge made technical comments regarding the lack of standing of Jill Stein's claim, invoked "irrationality" since it was obvious that Stein (in view of her election results) could not benefit personally from any recount, and concluded that he didn't even have jurisdiction over the case to begin with, since it meant overruling a prior Commonwealth Court’s refusal to order the recount... these are all technical details. For undermining democracy see my response in the first paragraph.

Sorry but "irrational" refers to the grounds for the claim. He's right: the grounds are that "the Russians could have hacked the election." Those are not grounds. Especially when one of the expert witnesses said that the chance of hacking was about as likely as "androids from outer space living among us." And Diamond specifically refers to an "outrageous" (as opposed to "appalling") subversion of democracy for millions of voters as one of a forest of reasons why Stein's motion could not be granted.

>>Not simplistic as you might have implied. The recount in Wisconsin proceeded after a judge deemed it as appropriate.

Judge deemed it appropriate?! My take is that the WI judges were exasperated. The federal judge said he wasn't going to overturn state decisions about an almost complete recount that isn't going to affect the result and has to get finished so that WI can meet its legal requirements wrt the electoral college. That's hardly a ringing endorsement. And here's what one of the recusing judges said as he stood down: “Now more than ever, a bit of judicial restraint is required to resist the calls of political sirens who urge the courts to engage in politics by another name. I do so in order that the decision made by my colleagues in this case will not be legitimately challenged by base speculation and groundless innuendo by the partisans in this controversy and beyond.” Seems to me the court was sick of the whole malarkey and quite concerned not to set a precedent that political malcontents can file groundless challenge after challenge.

>>I don't follow your reasoning (sorry, it's late here)... If the intent was to damage HRC, why would WikiLeaks or whoever look for compromising documents in the RNC system, when clearly the trove they were after was at the DNC, or elsewhere?

Because you're begging the question.

Occam's Razor sides with Wikileaks that they didn't release Republican dirt because they didn't have any. The FBI claim of Russians trying to damage HRC relies on selective release of her stuff and not Republican stuff, which would be true - *if* Wikileaks had Republican dirt, which they said they did not. So whether the Republicans similarly were hacked, is quite important. If the FBI is sure there was Republican dirt that was withheld to damage HRC, it ought to be possible to demonstrate.