>>>>>>>>>> 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.
The timing and how this card is being linked to and played in the election makes it a witch haunt, not whether the action itself is justified or not.
However I recognize that this is something very common in american politics. Its all about the puppet, never about relevant stuff.