[drewbug01]

> No-one believes either of those things.

“No-one” is a pretty broad claim, yeah?

> including Clinton herself, who has loudly and proudly declared repeatedly that she would/should have been president but for election interference.

The point you make is interesting, but surely there are pretty big differences in those two situations? Are they really identical in any way? I would be curious to know why they are the same thing and can be compared with each other like this - from my point of view, I don’t think I could agree.