I think it's interesting that Trump comes up with these non-sequiturs out of nowhere that end up looking incredibly prescient.

When Trump started with his "rigged election" non-sense, a lot of the media asserted that it was in response to his low polling numbers. It never made any sense to me, it's such a random and unconventional response. But I read this article and I realized that he was priming the public for this bit of news, he knew it was going to be released today because...

> Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, publisher of Observer Media.

This makes him look like a sage to his followers. He gets lambasted by the media for spouting off dubious claims, then a few weeks later, news surfaces suggesting he was right all along.

I can only imagine this isn't Trump's last move. I'm curious to see what his coup de grâce is for Clinton.

The quote is taken completely out of context:

"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."

While poorly worded and easy to read into when physically reading it, what she is saying is that they should have looked into who was likely to win before they pushed for elections there.

While I'm not a Hillary supporter by any means, and I certainly believe the U.S. to have rigged foreign elections, this is just jumping on the word "determined" and twisting it around.

I violated my rule for not posting on HN but no one seems to actually be listening to the tape.

The faux-outrage over Russia and Wikileaks "interfering" in the US election was good for a laugh, considering America's long and storied history of rigging elections (or overthrowing governments when the election didn't go their way). This is just icing on the cake.

The title is inaccurate. There's no evidence that she meant rigging the election. As someone else noted, she could've meant determining who was likely to win. If I'm betting on a football game, first I want to determine who's going to win. That doesn't mean I'm fixing the game. If I can't determine who's going to win, then I shouldn't bet. As the US shouldn't have bet by pushing the elections.

Has the US been trying to covertly rig/impact/sway foreign elections for decades through covert operations? Or does that only happen in the movies?

If so, HRC maybe had some knowledge of these types of acts, and was maybe carelessly referencing them?

The emperor wears no clothes and its skin is rotting off too.

How long is it gonna take before people realized that the voting system itself is gamed toward these two politically marginalizing mob organizations?

How is this news worthy? Intervening in foreign elections has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy for centuries. Would be more surprising to see high ranking officials opposed to this practice.

For starters, check out this timeline of US intervention in Latin America since the mid 1800s: http://www.zompist.com/latam.html