Actually, I think the responses to Trump's comments actually need a "woosh".
He's being unpresidential, but what he's really saying is that: maybe those emails aren't as lost as they would like everyone to believe. Which is to say that if people with the right skills, an inability to be arrested by the government, and a lack of interest in keeping Hillary out of trouble were looking, perhaps they would magically appear.
Just like: maybe the Democratic National Committee wasn't quite as unbiased as they said they were, but no one could prove that... until they could.
Many people think that Russia putting up Edward Snowden is helping out someone who helped America. Do those same people believe Snowden is a traitor for making use of Russia's good graces? Does anyone believe Russia is doing it to help out the cause of civil rights in America?
Of course they're not in it to help us out, but perhaps they might be helping out America in the long term by helping someone who dropped some short term troubles on us.
In this case, calling Trump a "traitor" is missing the point, since I imagine many, if not most of the people calling him a traitor think that Edward Snowden is a great guy. Even though I dislike Trump and just about everything about his campaign, I can see that this is just a little bit too easy and self-serving a distinction between the two.
The point is, if Russia finds something that destabilizes the USA by actually finding the truth, is that good or bad? I don't want Trump to win, but I don't want to excuse Clinton simply because the other option is somewhat worse. Its sort of like picking death by hanging or firing squad. Sometimes a choice isn't really a choice.
In any case, it's all theoretical. I'm sure Clinton had real experts delete those emails, as opposed to the amateur hour IT that got her in trouble to begin with. If anything, the Clintons do seem to come through in the clutch when there's an investigation in the works.