I like to engage with an interested party, but my internet connection is pretty bad so I often don't get the opportunity.

Let me take each of your paragraphs in turn, as is my custom in medium/long-form back-and-forths conducted by email (which this isn't, but hey, it's close).

First of all, I really appreciate your reponse--very thoughtful.

I appreciate your back-and-forth, too.  You and I have butted heads on here about political issues before, and it's heartening to have a conversation stay high-and-dry where it can be conducted productively.  That's not a comment about you specifically; it's more about the general climate of how we conduct ourselves these days.  And I dare say there are precious few places where it can even take place any more.

Second, I'm not saying Hillary is a perfect person--of course she's made mistakes, as have we all.

I don't think anyone believes their political representatives are perfect people.  They're all deeply flawed, perhaps no more so than in their desire to live in the fishbowl of political life.  It takes an abnormal person to actually *want* that life for themselves and their family.

Third, what I don't think can be argued is that she has devoted her life to public serivice--in direct contradiction to you-know-who.

This is an interesting point, diderot, and one on which I *think* much of the disagreement re; HRC's character springs from on 'both sides' of the discussion re: her character.  Camille Paglia has a beautiful quote in one of her Salon articles (a quote I can't find at present) which basically said that if one is 'speaking truth to power, and getting paid for it, that person is no longer speaking truth to power but is instead speaking on behalf of one power in favor of another.'  The thrust of her argument was that if you expect to be rewarded for given behavior, then you aren't really risking anything and that the *risk* is what, more than anything else, determines whether or not you are, indeed, speaking truth to power.

To me, public service is essentially the same thing.  It's supposed to be public service, not personal enrichment via the public trough.  The Clintons started with very, very little compared to many (most?) upper tier politicians, and now they're worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  I'm not saying that people should recuse themselves from engaging in post-public-office careers which are financially lucrative, but when someone rides the gravy train as high and long as the Clintons have then I don't think it's unreasonable to question their motives.

I do understand that most elected politicians, at least those at the Upper State or National level, engage in all manner of shady behavior during their 'service' to We, The People.  But I don't hold with the Noam Chomsky's of the world who encourage us to shrug our shoulders whenever 'both sides' of a given issue are engaged in equally bad behavior.  I think that if we spot something objectionable, we should do something about it.  The Clintons (and I think Bill Clinton was the best President we've elected in the last thirty years, FWIW) better represent the Political Elites and political corruption than any others today.

All that said, I think the damage has already been done to them and, if I was Trump, I'd drop the whole thing as much as possible.  The FBI and the IRS are going to do what they do, but I'd move on in the interests of unity.

Fourth, my main point is that it seems impossible that for a quarter of a century her political opponents could have investigated/harrassed her to near death...and electoral defeat...without finding anything to charge her with.  So again, my question--is that because the investigators are incompetent...or were perpetually misguided?  I believe in innocence until proven guilty.

In principle, I agree with everything in this paragraph.  In practice, I would quibble with the nature of 'innocent until proven guilty' and how it actually impacts everyday American lives, but you've got me co-signing this one as you've typed it up.

Finally, people should understand all the good that the Clinton Foundation has done without including that it the litany of conspiracy theories.  And thus, my comment about Giuliani--his track record is demonstrated.

Here, however, I've got to depart from your train of thought.  And I can do so with, I think, relatively simply: we don't define a criminal by the 99.999% of the time they spent being good, productive people who contributed to society.  We define them by that 0.0001% of their lives when they engaged in actively destructive behavior, and I think we hold coropration and foundations to similar standards.  When a serial rapist/murderer is sentenced to life in prison or given the death penalty, we as a society (in the legal sense) give not one whit about whether or not that horrendous human being is leaving dependents behind after he is removed from society.  We do have social security mechanisms of which those dependents can avail themselves, but we don't stay the hand of justice simply because 99.999% of the time he was breathing, that guy was doing good work.  We demand justice be delivered on behalf of those who have been harmed and on behalf of those who we would protect from similar harm in the future.

Not sure where this exchange should best continue, or how badly it needs to do so, but I'm good with (sporadically, I'm afraid) going back and forth if you'd like.  Ultimately, though, I agree with the general thrust of what I read as your position on all of the above: we really need to move on and focus on more productive things, as a society.  Time to circle the wagons and get on with life not as Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, but as Americans.