Noble purpose - Clinton Foundation.
“arguably said to have been earned” - Speaking fees, which are a time-honored tradition. Even Reagan spoke for money.
Strict financial separation - “But we’re married, of course all the money goes into the family account!”
The Clintons are professional grifters. They’ve thought this all out. They’ve gotten out of worse jams, jams which involved dead bodies. The only thing they didn’t figure on was her emails being recovered. But prosecution will require spines, which are in short supply.
True, but it doesn’t take spine to not vote if you know your party has nominated a grifter. The only question is whether Trump is as good at telling the truth about Hillary as he was at casting aspersions on honest people.Noble purpose - Clinton Foundation.Recall that there is a huge difference between criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” prosecution on the one hand, and not being "trusted beyond a reasonable doubt" - the standard which should apply to a presidential candidate. When you are a voter in a private booth - still more, when you decide whether to show up at the polls at all - it takes no courage, and you can apply the standard that seems right to you. You could even decide against someone because you don’t like their looks - which plainly happens a lot in politics.
We know that someone hired Craig Livingstone. That person, never publicly admitted to by President Clinton, was important enough to have the authority to do it, and important enough not to be thrown under the bus when Livingstone’s actions - many hundreds of counts of a felony, committed in the WH itself - became a huge embarrassment. We know that that person could have been Hillary, she had “opportunity.” She had motive. And if the home server means anything at all, we know that she respects no limits on her handling of classified information.
“arguably said to have been earned” - Speaking fees, which are a time-honored tradition. Even Reagan spoke for money.
Yes, Clinton Foundation - but the Constitution says it takes an act of Congress to make that permissible. Not a presidential decision, not the SoS’s decision, not the Red Cross’s decision or whatever noble charity you care to name. Congress.And in the case of Reagan, I think that even that was tacky - but neither President Reagan nor anyone else (Nancy, most certainly) who benefited from that money was working for the government at the time.
And, in the context of what you as a voter can choose to apply as a criterion, nobody should vote for a candidate who was soliciting donations from, or even doing legitimate business with, a foreign government which expected him/her to run for the presidency. Irrespective of whether that candidate was on the U.S. dime in some way at the time. SCOTUS has stretched a point on freedom of speech/press to the breaking point to sustain campaign finance “reform” - but what prevents “honoraria” from foreign governments from being used in unlimited amounts by Hillary to pay for political campaigning???
Speaking of “being on the Federal dime,” Reagan - and Clinton - were drawing a federal pension at the time they accepted the foreign government honoraria. But in the comparison of Reagan’s honoraria with Clinton’s, the Russian saying, “quantity has a quality all its own” must be considered. When the difference in quantity is two orders of magnitude, that is certainly true. And the Clinton’s have raked in, IIRC, something approaching a fifth of a billion dollars. This, after Hillary pronounced that the Clintons were “dead broke” in 2001.