Sigh, your question makes no sense.

Hal, you presented a group of black Sanders supporters, I presented a group of black Trump supporters both are free to express their opinions. Blacks who support Hillary Clinton express their differences with the sanders and Trump supporters in blogs, articles, televised interviews, and radio programs. This is a concept called free speech. Black people are free to disagree with other black people. Trump is not respected in the black community. Sanders is creating a more negative opinion of himself in the black community by acting like a privileged white guy.

Blacks are airing their differences in a civil fashion. The only group who feels entitled to shut down the free speech of Democrats are supporters of Bernie Sanders. These protesters operate with Sanders approval. They have shouted down speakers at rallies and at state conventions. They threaten to disrupt the Democratic National Convention.

Blacks have no problem disagreeing with other black people. Sanders and his supporters argue that they will create havoc if things do not go their way. Sanders will continue to be an irritant and not a uniter after he loses the nomination tomorrow.

I agree with you that we can expect an organization with broad and unchecked power to act illegitimately. We can expect the same of  a high percentage of individual people if they gain such power. We can, I believe, expect an even higher percentage of illegitimate actions from a generic politician who has broad and unchecked powers. Hillary, as a particular politician, has been suspected by half the country for years , and very recently has been shown beyond doubt in the particular case of her emails, to have acted illegitimately both in the use of her system and in her defense of it when her hubris was discovered [again] and has thereby forfeited one more notch of respect among many voters. If that loss of a notch of respect were not the case with me I would be asking myself why not.

I would, as I have said before, also would not think of Hillary’s bone-headed handling of her emails, as a single stand-alone issue, to be a deal breaker  if I didn’t think that she had already shown herself in many ways to be a poor choice to lead our country which has a system which is supposed to have checks and balances.  Her email handling and the subsequent attempt at cover up is just one more example to me of her poor judgment but also her attitude towards her own accountability, and taken together are pieces of the whole which to me is a deal breaker.

Has she lied in defense of her actions? I´ m shocked, shocked that she should have done so. She should have behaved like a well behaved nice girl and admitted her error even if that resulted in Donald Trump being elected.

 I am certainly not "shocked" that she lied and actually, after so much for so long, not even surprised that she casually put herself in a position which could only be salvaged with lies appealing to voters who know they are lies. I wish I was shocked that when the lies are revealed they still work so well.

 The existence of electorally  powerful superdelegates is defended by many Democrats as insurance against a candidate such as Trump riding a wave of misguided voters to gain the candidacy for the highest office of our country.  It is perfectly consistent with that view for a candidate that started in a far distant second place partially based on superdelegates who had aligned themselves with the Clinton machine, before any alternate choice to Hillary had even announced, to appeal to those superdelegates when it is shown during the subsequent campaign good reason why they should do so. The why-they-should-do-so part is of course subjective, debateable, and the very nature of the rift on the Democratic side.

I think the superdelegate system should be changed because it has been shown in this election cycle to be open to abuse. That said, it is part of the game as established by the Democratic machine and is in play in this election and if it has been used [and I think abused] by Hillary as an attempt to gain advantage I don’t object when Sanders tries to turn it back on her and use it to his advantage. If a late surprise were to make Hillary unelectable I believe that all of us who really really don’t want Trump elected would welcome the veneer of legitimacy that they could give to a choice of an alternative who could beat him.  When I have criticised Hillary for accepting contributions from ‘big-money’ some defenders have said it would be stupid for her to unilaterally disarm and that she should not do so because the election is too important. I now apply that argument to her opposition’s tactic of appealing to superdelegates.