Of course it’s corrupt especially if you can link her to the payment, but I’m guessing the ban does not apply to your spouse because technically how could you prevent them from taking it?
Still sinks to the high heavens.
But doesn’t being married create a legal unity between the two persons? If that’s the case, then a gift to one is a gift to the other, yes?
. . . no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Since the person married to our Secretary of State accepted the bribe instead of Hillary directly accepting the corrupt payment, there was no violation of the Constitution, at least not under the standards that are applied with the Clintons. Hillary is no more likely to be prosecuted for this than she is for her at best reckless mishandling of Top Secret material in a manner that surely released that information to dozens of countries and terrorist organizations.
Let's move on to a safe topic. The economy is out because Obama handled it so badly. Obamacare is out because it is a catastrophic failure. How about we talk about letting pedophiles and other predators into the restrooms used by little girls? At least that one has a chance of being phrased positively by the compliant media, and that might give even Hillary an edge.
If the payment went to the Clinton Global Initiative or whatever the money laundering setup was called, then that distinction may not apply.
Gifts to the President from foreign governments: See General Services Administration guidelines about valuations and taxes.
Obama may have gotten the short end on gifts:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-unusual-gifts-given-to-presidents/462831/