interesting side-argument, but at the end of the day, it’s a side argument. And “security risk” was only one of the three issues mentioned. It was demonstrated in spades how having a separate server can prevent or obstruct Congress from engaging in its Constitutional oversight requirement.
Yes, I understand that you disagree.
Kady M.

But it (the server as disqualification) is a side argument that you have made central.

I remind you of the core issue here: Whether it was right for Comey to announce investigation of HRC 10 days prior to election and at the same time keeping secret the Trump-Russia investigation. (I won’t recap the entire reasoning; that’s been laid down earlier in this thread and here.)

You have been attempting to moot that question by saying the private server issue makes HRC ineligible to be pres. The server trumps the other issue. But that’s really a red herring. My question is about fairness, and really due process. Comey’s disclosure violates both of those principles.

BTW, you’ve presented nothing to show how the private server is a disqualification (this is the side issue — take note).

There is no crime or misdemeanor involved. In other words, it is not an impeachable offense. In effect, if as a nation we were to follow your dictum, we would be impeaching a future president in advance. But if it’s not impeachable while in office — it may be frowned upon — it is not impeachable prior to holding office.

Going back to the peripheral but causally linked issue of the server, it needs to be demonstrated that that was an egregious abuse of power; there needs to be some technical discussion of how it demonstrates gross incompetence or felonious intent. Those would be the conditions for what in effect was a preemptive strike on an HRC presidency. The server issue would have to rise to that level and not remain on the level of layman-level suspicion.