>>(Sigh) I'm pointing out facts. Again, during 2006-2008, the U.S. sold $219 million in weapon's to Bahrain's military. Then Bahrain contributed 32 million to Clinton Foundation programs. Then during HRC's tenure, the State Department approved the sale of $630 million worth of weapons to Bahrain's military. The State Department also approved a huge spike in the sales of arm sales classified as toxicological agents.
>>If that isn't worthy of further investigation, than I don't know what would.

If you're suggesting that extra weapons sales were only allowed because a donation was given to the Clinton foundation- then that's crazy. If you're really wanting to look for corruption, I'd be looking more closely at the manufacturers who are the ones reaping the benefit.

>> the "you need to show a donor got to meet her who normally wouldn't get a foot in the door" doesn't hold water, and would give HRC license to work with people outside the scope of agreements she signed.

Yes, but the upshot of your inflexibility is that people who donate have to be treated *worse* than anybody else or you say that business as usual needs investigation. If she would have met somebody whether they donated or not- then your smoking gun is a sopping-wet squib.

>>Second, on this "if the Crown Prince is the only example"....you've essentially acknowledged that I've answered your initial question to name an example of pay to play.

For the 4th time: using the Crown Prince to assert pay to play, is on own goal. Of course he gets his meeting, for reasons I've stated repeatedly.

>> Again, at the beginning of HRC's tenure, she signed an agreement letter to the State Department Ethics Official, stating she wouldn't participate in any matter involving the Clinton Foundation or any party they represented.

That's not exactly what she said but the gist was similar, depending what "party" means. Does this prevent her meeting a donor? If so, then only a half-wit who knows s/he needs to meet HRC, would donate a bean. That's not a reasonable expectation.

>>reduction ad absurdum, the "if we didn't sell them weapons, Bahrain would get them from someone else" is the magic "get out of jail, free" card, mean there would never, never be any logical grounds for finding HRC guilty of violating her agreements and even federal corruption charges.

Navigating past the mixed metaphors... what are you saying exactly? If Bahrain wants to spend (say) a billion of its petrodollars on weapons and wants to buy most of them from the US, what should HRC do? According to you, she needs to say "buddy, you're SOL because you donated to my foundation. See ya." In which case, what do you think will happen when the French are smarming all over him?