First some truth about Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation.
The foundation has eleven major charities. BBC News writes:
The rating group Charity Watch gives the Clinton Foundation an "A" and reports that 88% of the money the foundation brings in goes to its programmes, with the rest spent on overhead – surpassing the benchmark for reputable charity groups.
As the Clinton supporter James Carville has told CNN:
The Clintons never took a nickel out of [their] foundation. In fact they gave a million dollars.
Donald Trump paints a different picture. On August 22 he said:
The Clintons have spent decades as insiders lining their own pockets and taking care of donors instead of the American people. It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history. What they were doing during Crooked Hillary's time as Secretary of State was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It must be shut down immediately.
Some of us think that Mr. Trump is full of it. Some others have raised the issue of a conflict of interest involving Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. BBC News writes:
Clinton critics assert that the foundation created the possibility that donors could unduly influence Mrs Clinton's official actions and provide individuals with special access to her.
Claims by people hostile to Clinton assume that donations have been the cause of favorable actions, the fallacy of assuming a connection that does not necessarily exist. All they point to is what they call smoke. It's unsubstantiated innuendo. Evidence is lacking that there has been such a connection, that Hillary has done anything wrong. There will be no indictment against Hillary. The mobs at Trump rallies chanting "lock her up" are going to be disappointed.
In today's Washington Post a Trump critic, Kathleen Parker, worries about an erosion of Hillary's credibility. She writes of a batch of e-mails released two days ago as making "clear that Clinton Foundation donors got access to the State Department." Got? Had? So what? Nothing new here. Connecting State Department actions with donations remains merely the hope of people hostile to the Clintons.
That some people donated to the Clinton foundation hoping to get better treatment is a possibility. That kind of things exists in politics in the form of political contributions. But why the great moral outrage from paragons of virtue like Trump? And where is the evil? What we have here are people with a lot of money donating to causes that help a lot of people who need it.
Parker mentions examples of people who were given access to Clinton through Clinton's aide, Huma Aberdin. In a comment to Parker's column someone points out examples of Aberdin denying donors access to Secretary of State Clinton – a minor point.
Meanwhile many – in Salem witch-hunt fashion – express anger with others who don't share their certainty about Hillary's corruption.
Copyright © 2016 by Frank E. Smitha. All rights reserved.