You are right, Peter, and I acknowledge that your invitation was conditional, based on what you justifiably perceived was my anger at the election of Trump. In that light, you rose above the "don't go away mad, just go away" level, and I understand that your invite was reasonable.

As to your persistent quibbling, what Comey said was that he saw no reason to prosecute, that is, file charges based on probable cause. He repeated that belatedly after the Weiner eruption, but conveniently after the obvious damage was done. He influenced the election with innuendo, and he did it deliberately. You claim innuendo as evidence, but it is not. You have presented no proof of Clinton wrongdoing, while insisting that innuendo is proof.  You have advanced no argument pro, nor have you advanced your understanding re facts vs. rumor.

If you haven't seen the light by now, I hold out little hope that you will. However, I admire your sincerity, your honesty (within its limits), and writing skill.