Is this just over the emails scandal where the FBI decided it wasn't worth pushing charges, or is it dating back further?

It probably is safe to say that very few of said liberals actually do think that Clinton should be in prison, hence your conclusion is simply irrelevant to them...

The part about the Clintons seeming to play by different rules is, I dare say, a lot more widely accepted among liberals, which is probably why Clinton had such a hard time in the primaries when her only serious rival was espousing policies that would have seen him laughed out of the race even in most European countries, however socialist those may seem from the American position. Which brings me to my subject line.

It is pretty amazing how the Republicans managed to nominate someone who looks increasingly like the only person capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory against Clinton, and setting the good ol' big tent on fire in the process.

There's a reason (I mean, other than the timing coinciding with Trump's tape) why that revelation got so little traction: people aren't stupid. If the worst thing she told those bankers was just something that people already take for granted even for politicians they do like, never mind for Clinton, then one wonders why she ever tried to hide those transcripts at all. And while I won't quibble too much with 'she has no stances to stand upon', the same goes for Trump (no, 'I'm awesome and everybody else sucks' does not count as a political stance), so that's not much of an argument to decide the dilemma.