I like to read the comments following political articles to try to get some sense of how the various parties think. One common note in the back & forth of "your guy..." / "oh yeah, well your guy..." is that Clinton has a long list of crimes and poor positions taken. The implication is that even if Trump's list of crazy positions/actions is bad, there are equivalences in Clinton equally bad or even worse. I never did know what they meant. Finally someone posted a list.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...at-they-actual

I find it pretty weak, actually. Most are either petty:
Quote After ranking members of the Democratic National Committee were found to have been massaging the primary race for Mrs. Clinton, she nonetheless hired for her campaign the recently resigned and disgraced former head of the DNC, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
(vs. Trump hiring a campaign director who worked for dictators...) or based on imaginary alternative universes:
Quote Backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt nearly destroyed a traditional ally. The Iranian government has stepped up its support of terrorism, its hostage-taking and its promises to destroy Israel — after the Iran accord Mrs. Clinton claims to have helped initiate.
so.. if we'd backed Mubarak agains the Arab Spring, all would be good? And it's Clinton's fault we didn't???

only a couple are concerning:
Quote We are discovering from her unsecured and once-deleted correspondence more evidence of negligence and unethical behavior — from crossover business between State Department operatives and the Clinton Foundation to quid-pro-quo favors and discussions about a U.S. informant who was later executed by the Iranian government.
which could be bad, but again, has been shown by other sources to be an overblown accusation, and
Quote Hillary and Bill Clinton have become multimillionaires through speaking and consulting, often on the tacit understanding that their past and present public service could benefit unscrupulous corporate and foreign interests willing to pay them exorbitant fees.
which again is bad, but unfortunately isn't disqualifying given that few if any politicians refuse to exploit their connections when given opportunity to do so. It's a grey area, but unless the politician claims to be unusually pure (e.g. Jerry Brown in the old days, or Bernie now) I think it has to be scored on a curve. Taking money from bankers for giving a speech seems less egregious than going to work for companies you once regulated. In the utopian future, we won't see any politicians doing either anymore.

I'd thought they were talking out of their asses when they claimed that Clinton's equally awful as Trump, but I feel better about that judgement now that I've seen them trying to make their case.