>The "rigging" he referred to, was voter fraud and media collusion against him. Wikileaks subsequently 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?

It is not about being noble or evil. That's what makes it a false dilemma.
When the candidates misbehaved in ways that are compromising the faith in the system, I think we should welcome all attempts (regardless of intent) to restore it. Pointing to (im)morality in this context leads to endless discussions like this. That was my point to begin with. You insisted that I quote the debate statements for you, and I did. I don't mind your discussion about HRCs/DNC/Stein/whoever... moral flaws. Just make sure you don't readily dismiss the effects of what's going on today as simply immoral posturing.

>
>>>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.

"Filing groundless suits" means that they trust the system and its due process, though I don't treat them like saints for abusing it. "Might not" accept the results means that he didn't trust it.

>
>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.

I'm pretty sure that the same qualifiers would have applied to Trump's statements during the campaign and at the debate. Only that his statements were made in a context in which they could not be denied. The "spectral fears" that he meant to instill could have had a far greater effect in influencing voters' mentality before the election. In the recount case, the "spectral fears" did not materialize because democracy was protected by a judge. I like that, because it creates a precedent that may make a future presidential candidate think twice before speaking about rigged systems when invoking sparse anecdotal evidence. That is the plus value in all this.
....

>
>>>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.

Hmm. Not fair! You implied that clear evidence in RNC hacking is crucial at this point. It would indeed be relevant if it could be proved one way or another. Unfortunately, the claim that "the RNC was not hacked" lacks falsifiability. Also, I don't think is that relevant. BTW, the claim that RNC was hacked was initially advanced by CIA (they act on narrative), and I am not so sure that FBI goes along with it.
Initially, FBI did not endorse the CIA's finding because it did not meet the standards of evidence necessary to win a conviction in a U.S. court. Now, apparently FBI backs CIA assessment on Russian motives in U.S. hacking...
I'd take FBI claims more seriously. I think Trump should, too.

>
>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.
*