>>A handful of times now, you've projected/speculated what the MSM will say.

When it's not being partisan the MSM is fond of dramatic unlikely interpretations to attract interest (and advertising) in an era when a fickle audience browses for news it expects to be as free as software. Meanwhile Google now shapes your search results according to interest you showed previously. Dystopia here we come.

>>But there is also little question that some of the donors have expected a "quid pro quo". There is also zero question that donors have included foreign leaders/oligarchs from countries that participate in the very kind of human rights violations that lead to conditions the CF states that they intend to address. The conflict of interest here is just too high.

The Saudis currently chair the UN Human Rights Council, believe it or not. Imagine the political fallout if their donation nevertheless were refused as dirty money.

FWIW: some years ago down under, there was a German internet sensation who settled in NZ and donated some $ to a politician's campaign fund. One day, the sensation's mansion was raided and he was arrested for copyright breaches and other misbehavior. The FBI wanted him extradited to the US asap. So the sensation called on the politician - who refused to be associated with the debacle. The sensation was enraged and later gave statements to authorities that effectively ended the politician's career. The politician did clear his name eventually after his wife dedicated herself for almost 2 years to finding new evidence to disprove the sensation's claims and the legal fees exceeded the donation by an order of magnitude.

My point is that Hell has no wrath like an expectant donor scorned.

So, to allege Clinton malfeasance, there ought to be at least one unnatural advantage given a donor. I believe the opposite is shown- with most requests being declined. So where is the retaliation if there is an expectation of quid pro quo as you insist? No retaliation + nobody able to identify unnatural favors, and Walter is right to say "witch hunt."

>>More and more I'm hearing a suggestion that the Bill/Melinda Gates Foundation should essentially run the CF. Neither Bill nor Melinda Gates has expressed (to my knowledge) any serious interest in running for political office.

Fair enough. But presidential campaigns are donated millions by entities that seem to expect (and sometimes seem to receive) quid pro quo. I'd say the Clinton Foundation ought not to be held to a higher standard than a presidential campaign. Allowed to take $ from foreign despots? Well, money is money- and it appears most unlikely that Clinton funds are diverted to Hamas tunnels and weapons as it appears that some World Vision and UN charity/development funds were.

>>Given that the odds of HRC winning the election are probably better than 50-50, the smartest thing the Clintons can do is just turn everything over to the Gates.

Haven't they said they'll turn it over to others? As for 50:50 : don't the punsters call her a near certainty at this point?