Clinton's foundation woes pale compared with Trump's

Orlando Sentinel 

Even the most ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton must concede that the latest revelation regarding her connection to the Clinton Foundation — that numerous big donors to the charity appear to have had ready access to her when she served as secretary of state — doesn't reflect well on the Democratic nominee for president. It's entirely possible that many of these affluent individuals and business owners would have gotten into her office anyway, but the appearance of "pay to play" exists nonetheless.

Such ethical entanglements seem to have dogged Clinton rather consistently — whether it's taking large speaking fees from Wall Street banks or using a private email server... while serving as President Barack Obama's top foreign-policy adviser. None have produced the proverbial "smoking gun," a clear case of quid pro quo (or an offense worthy of prosecution), but enough of them have stacked up to raise serious questions about her judgment.

The problem with this pattern of behavior is that, particularly in the context of the ethically murky world of Washington insider politics, it's not so cut and dried. What the latest report from the Associated Press revealed is that at least 85 of 154 people with private interests who met with her at the State Department had either given or pledged large sums to her charity.

Add that to email exchanges that demonstrate that her aides were looking out for the interests of foundation contributors is more than a little embarrassing.