Second, does the fact that (s)he posts innuendo in the form of questions have the appearance of a classic concern troll?

Third, does the lack of any cohesive argument indicate a lack of logic and lack of understanding, combined with an obsessive need to be right at any cost, or,

Fourth, is it possible that the lack of evidence is because (s)he was instructed to sow doubt, and avoid falsifiable statements?

Fifth, might we be wasting time responding to a minor annoyance?

   You'll have to elaborate on the distinction between wishy washy and CYA for me to understand your point.

  Sure, it's possible some people are skeptical of reporting on the Clinton based on what they perceive as overblown past coverage. It's equally possible many people are legitimately skeptical of the Clintons based on their past conduct.

But she does not sound like she has become Catholic or Episcopalian or other old line Protestant.....She sounds Evangelical--e.g., having a personal relationship with Jesus.

I am so disgusted by all of this that I am just about ready to send Hillary money. I have moments when I want her to win just to spite our so-called journalists.

OMG! Stop the presses! Rich people have lots of money! Stop the presses again! Rich people hang out together!

   I also think YOU (unlike some here --who shall remain nameless-- whom I  am persuaded are in fact that stupid) are smart enough to know  that  actionable evidence is not often the starting point of investigation, it's a potential result. That party line defense may be ingrained but it's transparent hogwash.

  Imagine a potential client comes to a lawyer's office claiming she  was wrongfully discriminated against by her  employer ( or any number of things). Do you think lawyers always  reject looking into the case if the person cannot provide direct "hard evidence" of actionable conduct?  Have you any idea of the number of things that would never have been shown and to some degree remedied, if lawyers simply refused all cases where the client had not tied a neat package of proof up with a bow and presented it to a lawyer who needed to nothing but organize and present the client provided evidence?

   Obviously,  not every potential client presents even a case worthy of investigation if everything he says is taken at face value. Also, further investigation will sometimes indicate (not always for reasons related to the legal or moral culpability of the adverse party) that the case is not worth pursuing.

  But, MANY MANY MANY times the sometimes relatively bare allegations made by a client are suggestive and it  is precisely the kind of thorough investigation which obviously includes examining for patterns of practice, concealed intent, etc., etc.

   Sure a woman stating: I was passed over for a promotion; I'm a woman; three times, men who had been with the company a shorter period of time than me got promoted; it's gender discrimination, has not proven that it's in fact gender discrimination.

  It very well could be though. And, it's not rarely the case that further investigation will show that her specific claim is strongly buttressed by evidence showing she is not an isolated example at her employer and data showing that hiring and promotions skewing in a statistically improbable manner if "gender-neutral" decisions were being made.

  That kind of pattern and practice evidence is NOT "direct" evidence the woman has been wrongfully discriminated against. It sure as shooting can be highly compelling circumstantial evidence and has long been recognized as such by the courts.  Cases are lost by employers despite NO direct evidence (which literally could come only in the form of an admission) of discrimination (and many more are settled) precisely because in most contexts normal people have little trouble grasping the import of such circumstantial evidence. the more circumstantial evidence you have and the stronger it is, the more likely you are to prevail. But, you won't have it if you refuse to look for it (and know where to look and how to compel its disclosure).

  People are going to do a lot more than  the absurdly illogical blather (I won't dignify it by calling it an argument) that investigation must begin with proof or are somehow illegitimate.

  Sometimes not. additionally, there is a school of thought that people with fiduciary duties to conduct business on behalf of other should endeavor to avoid even the "appearance" of impropriety.

   Call me old fashioned, but I'd put presidents of the United states in that category.

   A thought to ponder: If defending someone running for high office compels you to stake out the position which sounds dangerously close to:

 Short of proof that a person has engaged in  conduct that establishes every essential element of a specific provision of the criminal code, there should be no concern  expressed about the conduct.