[quote=@Spoopy Scary]
So, to begin, let me just put out a disclaimer: I've been a little out of the loop lately, so I might not be right in the end and I'm okay with that. I'm always ready to learn. That being said, some of the sources you have cited aren't credible. There might be inklings of truth in some of them, but if they aren't honest or objective from the get-go, I can't be certain what is true and what is not without in-depth research and that's not the kind of time I want to be spending for a political conversation with a stranger on a roleplaying forum.
[list][*] The Medium article you cited has been using coded or outright biased language in order to persuade the reader toward a certain conclusion (e.g. "...we have known about these facts since they emerged from Clapper’s racist face hole on May 8..."), so to save time, I'm gonna outright ignore it. Which might mean I'll miss out on some truth, but for all I know, it could also be all croc... and that's speaking as a liberal about a left-leaning website.

[*]The Daily Caller, has a history of right-heavy bias and sensationalist headlines, so nope. But hey, kudos to you for being diverse and nonpartisan in your source picking.[/list]
And a bunch of the other articles either don't relate to or support the theory of foreign involvement in her 2016 campaign (or her 2008 campaign, as far as I can tell). Like those donations to the Clinton Foundation which were outside of the nation's election periods can't possibly have any strong link to either campaign - and it doesn't matter in this case that she took and kept money by a sexual offender, and that's speaking as a survivor myself. By no means am I defending Clinton as an ethical person or her Foundation as an ethical organization, but those sources don't support your claim of foreign involvement in this last election season.

The best article you've given is the one by The Hill where the Clinton campaign apparently colluded with Ukraine officials. The Hill being a good, solid source. My only problem is that there are few other sources with the same credibility supporting the same story without bias, so I have to be open to the possibility that it may not be true or that I am not getting all of the information about Ukraine's involvement.

In the case where I'm wrong, I stand corrected and thank you for bringing that information to my attention. But otherwise, there is a lot of misleading information in your case which leads me to wonder if you have your own bias in simply wanting to see Clinton fail.

Like I said, I have no love for the former Secretary of State or the DNC. And yes, Clinton carries with her a metric SHIT-TON of baggage that looks very damning and can easily lead someone to some conclusions... but among it, there simply isn't enough hard proof of foreign involvement in her 2016 campaign for me to settle on a definitive conclusion.
[/quote]

Let's apply that same standard to the Trump campaign. What's your definitive conclusion there? 

Remember, Manafort, the Trump guy they're needling for foreign involvement, is currently indicted for activities he undertook on behalf of the Ukraine, during his time with Podesta Group -- Podesta, as in Hillary's campaign manager.

EDIT: as an aside, everything I just linked is a matter of record. Some of it, like Uranium One, we're still waiting o more info, but the part of the story we've got on record so far is very damning. You should definitely look into these things on your own time. I haven't even touched the conspiracy theories, credible (Seth Rich) or otherwise (comet ping pong)