[Newsweek] Trump is Most Conflicted Candidate Ever

Someone else has already pointed out some of the inaccuracies.

1. Yes Huma is a top assistant. An email or phone call from her still doesn't equal a pay to play situation.

2. As far as the people who received meetings including from the article you mentioned, that doesn't seem that out of the ordinary for a secretary of state. One of the guys was a nobel prize winner etc. It doesn't appear that anyone got special treatment or favors for donating to the CF.

3. Bill hyping charity organizations at a paid speech doesn't seem to be a conflict of interest or any way scandal-worthy

4. The 90% number isn't crap. It's the way their foundation works. They aren't a foundation that goes into the field like Doctors without borders. They are a foundation that gives medicine, vaccines, and gives to local groups that do the groundwork and make a difference.

They've actually released donor lists and all of that. It isn't pay for play because the Clinton's aren't getting paid in any way from the charity. At least that's according to what we know so far.

 

And I'll reiterate that the lack of scandal doesn't preclude the suspicion or perception that access can be granted with money.

Just like how Hillary's speeches to Wall Street "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption".

As she constantly chooses to put herself in this position, would you agree that it's fair game to criticize, poke and prod until she and her husband completely divest themselves from the Foundation and paid speeches while in office?

As a partisan who isn't voting for Hillary, would you want these perceptions to "Benghazi" its way through Capitol Hill for another four years with a slow drip of "not-scandal-worthy" gray area vignettes every few months or so?

Maybe time with an environmental non-profit might be influencing me. There are other expenses that compete with the good work a charity does, such as having operational expenses yearly in the red or flying around the world in hot spots to assess climate change when simply contacting people on the ground would be enough.

The work they have done has a clear difference. What would the Clintons do if their charity started failing while in office? What takes precedence? What's the game plan then?

For all of it's subsidiaries?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c0f374-edbc-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html