because it assumes as fact what is not in evidence.
Yes, I understand that you disagree.
Kady M.
12

Your usage of legal terminology and concepts is obscuring — naturally — your argument.

Essentially you are saying that regardless of whether there were adverse results (other than an investigation) from HRC’s use of a private server, the security risk and the oversight issues invalidate her presidency in advance. She is disqualified in your judgment.

Again, the server is a procedural infraction. You are trying to elevate it to a high crime. In such a case, one has to consider intent. You seem to ignore the motivations for the server. If there had been nefarious intent, that would be impeachable. But there seems to have not been.

You are along with Comey lowering the bar on what is an impeachable offence. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and you were able to exercize that through your vote, but Comey’s decision was a form of electoral sabotage. He tilted the playing field by raising doubts almost to election day. And that can’t be defended. It’s an extra-judicial intervention. Your opinion (and there are others that hold it of course) and Comey’s are not sufficient grounds to intervene in the election process.

Because Comey adhered to FBI policy by not disclosing the Trump investigation, he should have acted in the same way regarding the Clinton investigation.