>>>But I ask you as a reasonable person, is it likely that someone who can gain from favorable treatment by Hillary Clinton will give millions of dollars to a charity like the Clinton foundation, except for some kind of reward?
>>>Not certitude.
>>>Likelihood.
>
>It's probable that many donors chose that particular charity because of the Clinton connection. And yes, I'd say that some hoped they were banking indulgences for a rainy day.
>
>But that does not prove wrongdoing by HRC. You need to show that she granted a donor an indulgence not otherwise available. Can you?

Absolutely not.
That's why people investigate these things.
Usually, it involves someone who was involved in the discussion pleading to a lesser charge or, rarely, getting pangs of conscience as John Dean did with Watergate.
Blatant offenses capture investigators' eyes.
These donations are pretty blantant. The Clintons seem to have succummed to the arrogance that inevitably sets in with repeat offenders.

http://newjersey.news12.com/news/sentencing-set-for-former-christie-mentor-in-flight-scheme-1.12192744
This case is somewhat analagous. The arrogance here is off the chart.
The connection between the gift and the reward was very likely, but not provable.
The denials went on and on.
Finally, someone broke and Samson will be going to jail.
Stay tuned.
He might break and name Christie.