“Appealing to authority (you mean respecting authority or deferring as I said?) is not a logical fallacy.”

Yes, it is: “An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it.” –Wikipedia

“We appeal to those with greater knowledge than us all the time.”

Are you here for an intellectual debate, or to state your faith in someone else’s claims?

“And ‘nothing is a foregone conclusion’ is not a logical fallacy either.”

Yes, it is: Since the word “nothing” is absolute, all I have to do is show one example. I did that. Here it is again, reworded: It is a foregone conclusion that a banker would know to lock the safe, and it is a forgone conclusion that a Secretary of State would know to handle state secrets securely.

“I’m not equivocating. I’m not using ambiguous language to conceal the truth and/or avoid committing myself.”

Sure you are. You insinuated that my term “forgone conclusion” meant “guilty until proven innocent”, when it actually meant “proven”.

“And red herring? I’m not saying anything to be intentionally misleading or distracting.”

I don’t know your intent; all I know is what you write.

“I can think of many reasons why a government official would abuse their power. But they’re all hypothetical. We aren’t dealing with hypothetical, nor are we dealing with generalizations. We’re dealing with the actual director of the FBI, who by all accounts, far and wide, left and right, is an honest and upstanding person. What reason would this particular government official have to not follow the law, i.e. abuse his power? What’s the gain for him were he to do so?”

If you don’t like hypothetical, then why are you making huge and grand hypotheses about a government official? Let me put it this way: Which is more “hypothetical; that a government official should be trusted, or that a government official should not be trusted? If you think the answer is the latter, I have a certain Constitution for you to read.

“I’m very untrusting of politicians and government as a whole right now.”

Your trust in Comey betrays your claim.

“But in my humble opinion, James Comey is an upstanding, honest, truthful person. I’ve watched over five hours of him speaking, and in no way whatsoever do I see him as a person who would abuse his power or try not to do his very best, his very impartial best, to adhere to the law in all it’s nuance. This is my judgment. His complete explanation of what happened, what he and his team did, and how they came to the conclusion not to recommend indictment makes sense if you look at it objectively.”

You aren’t displaying objectivity (or distrust of government). You are displaying blind trust (faith) in what a government official led you to believe.

“I am very cynical of government.”

You are saying it, but not showing it.

“James Comey makes me believe that there are people in government who are looking out for you and me, and I find comfort in that.”

Exactly… faith provides comfort.

“This has absolutely nothing to do with Hilary Clinton and everything to do with faith in the system and those very few in power who work with honesty and integrity, however fractured that system is.”

You aren’t demonstrating faith in “the system”, but instead in a government official (who only CLAIMS to represent the system). Instead of deferring to what he leads you to believe, think for yourself; and answer how it’s possible that Hillary didn’t know not to flagrantly and blatantly and repeatedly violate prime directive number one.