At one time the expression "smoking gun" was used to mean evidence so indisputable and undeniable that it won the case; but now it seems that unless there is a "smoking gun," the charges can't be proven. If that standard applied everywhere, all one has to do is destroy the evidence then walk free. Come to think of it…
Anyway, what honest reason would a person have to make a generous donation to an enterprise conducted with a government official or a political figure? A Ukrainian businessman donated millions to the Clinton Global Initiative, while Hillary was Secretary of State, and while he was trading with Iran. A group of Russians who received government approval for its bid for a uranium mine, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton received nearly $100 million in speaking fees since he left the White House in 2001, and the price skyrocketed during the four years Hillary served as Secretary of State, whose political aspirations for the White House were well known. Forgive us for drawing the conclusion that those millions were either a disguised contribution to Hillary or a means of buying access or influence or future favors from her.
And what about the “good work” of the Clinton Foundation? It spent $75 million from 2009 to 2012 on “programmatic grants". It spent $25 million on travel during the same time; $110 million on employee salaries and benefits; and $290 million on “other expenses.” In 2013, 10% of its money went to charitable grants: $140 in contributions, but only $9 million was spent on direct aid. A senior fellow at The Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group, says, “It seems the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.” Charity Navigator, a group that rates foundations, put the Clinton Foundation on its “Watch List” and refused to rate it because it doesn’t meet the criteria for rating.
Just imagine what the reaction would be if it were a “Bush Foundation” or “Romney Foundation” doing the same things the Clinton Foundation is doing.