>>>>>>>>> Bill and HIllary have given over $23M to charity between 2001 and 2015
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's about $1.5 million per year.
>>>>>>>That's a lot of money for two people who have been exclusively in the public sector for decades to be giving away.
>>>>>>>http://www.presidentsusa.net/presidentsalaryhistory.html
>>>>>>>I note the donations began in 2001.
>>>>>>>They were "dead broke" at that time, she said.
>>>>>>>That was about the time of the Marc Rich pardon
>>>>>>>That's also around the time they bought the estate in Chapaqua to go along with their pads in the Hamptons, NYC and DC, et al.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Naming something after yourself i.e. "Clinton Foundation" is always a self-serving ego project. Anyone donating or receiving funding or good works from it have the Clinton name in their faces, and that's just the way the Clintons like it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The question is, how slushy does the ego project become?
>>>>>
>>>>>Do the ones they help, really care?
>>>>
>>>>Suppose Foundation X (FX) is funding a 5-year program to combat AIDS. Mid-way through year 1 FX's bank accounts get frozen due to real or perceived slushiness.
>>>>
>>>>Do you think the program workers care about that? What about their patients?
>>>
>>>Did that happen? If not, lets not play a witch hunt.
>>
>>Ego projects run by government officials deserve, even require, scrutiny.
>
>Still sounds like a witch haunt.

Calling scrutiny a "witch hunt" implies it's unjust, which is not the case here. The trouble arises when someone calls it a witch hunt just because they don't want to be scrutinized.