Now, can you say that we have a clear example, while Trump is in a public office, that he has had the same *CLEAR* behavior?
So you're basically admitting your real apparent defense is Trump has not actually held political office yet...
There is nothing more "creditable" than an EXACT example of the behavior that indicts Hillary in crystal clear behavior. And to say that those were not "serious" is fucking laughable. They have been vetted and reported by public media and are very serious and "creditable".
We're talking about an issue which as actually addressed is obviously far less an issue than Trump's direct business interests. Bogus and clearly false claims aside, the evidence is the Clinton Foundation has served as a legitimate charity rather than a business interest of the Clintons. By contrast, Trump can easily directly financially benefit from his business interests and has not committed to do something like sell them.
And to address your edit. $145mm given to the Clinton Foundation by 9 men who benefitted the most from the Uranium mining transfers. Sure, Hillary was one of 9 on the board, but then again, we don't know where else the bread was buttered. How about this nuclear board, yet another pay for play to a donor. What about the Laureate school and Bill's $16.5mm of salary for an "honorary Chancellorship" and the massively increased grants given to Laureate and it's CEO's foundation?
As has been established on this forum among other places, there were plenty of reasons to agree to agree to allow the mining transfer, including much of worldwide uranium comes from for instance Canada and Australia limiting strategic concerns, and the State Department was notably only one of many Federal Government organization which had to independently approve the business action before it could go through
In terms of the key claim you just made, the actual evidence is the university took advantage of the prestige of Bill Clinton's name rather than directly obtained advantages from governmental action as a quid pro quo or the like. In other words exactly the same thing that Trump routinely has done with various business interests of his, with the distinction being unlike Clinton who is no longer involved with the university group in question as a chancellor or the like, Trump still owns his various businesses.
With the rest of the claim, the obvious massive distinction again is the fact its money to a charitable foundation with the Clinton's name rather than direct financial benefit to the Clintons. Now if Hillary were running against a different candidate this could be a potentially more creditable issue to bring up, but in this case we're talking about Trump. Trump again has failed to effectively address the glaring conflict of interest issue of his direct interests in his businesses and what happens when he is President. (In terms of the potential transparency issue with Clinton, you have with Trump the fact he has not and refuses to release his tax returns or the full scope of his business interests which would even allow Americans to evaluate when a decision might have been improperly oriented to benefiting his businesses.)
Facebook
Twitter