I can’t really argue with speculation. If we’re going to include postulations based on insinuations rather than evidence, we have very little to operate from in creating a constructive dialog.

There’s been no concrete evidence of foreign involvement (unless you’re referencing WikiLeaks as a “foreign” entity). Just because it has been relentlessly parroted in defense of an indefensible act, does not make it so. Our own intelligence agencies have said the only evidence to suggest foreign involvement is that the techniques used had previously been used by Russian hackers. The counter-argument to that is that it would be very unlikely actual Russian intelligence would use processes that have already been discovered to be Russian. Further, once discovered, these techniques are usable by anyone with the technical savvy to do so. Does this mean it wasn’t Russians? Absolutely not, but it does mean there is no certainty on the matter, and to suggest otherwise is speculation.

Further, Director Comey’s position is appointed by the president. So, you’re suggesting that President Obama’s continued support of Director Comey must have been a poor decision. Again, I’ll have to fall back to my appeal of authority and suggest that the Democratic leader who appointed Director Comey, along with Director Comey’s own authority, hold more weight as justification than your ambiguous insinuations of misconduct. Have you actually read Director Comey’s statements regarding the emails of either, if not both, reviews of them?