dogmeat wrote:If you think that's the core of why the Clinton Foundation is be criticized then you're ignoring the issues.
Well, duh. Of course that's not why the Clinton Foundation is be criticized.
It is be criticized because Hillary Clinton is running for President, and if there's one thing that conservatives loooooooooove to do, it's to go completely ballistic over the Clintons.
They spent $40 million dollars on the "Whitewater" witch hunt, and came up with nothing.
They accused Hillary Clinton of murdering a guy named Vince Foster, and when that fizzed out, they began yammering about a whole bunch of people Bill and Hillary supposedly killed (a nice explanation of that particular insanity is here).
They doggedly pursued an overwhelmingly unpopular campaign to impeach the first President Clinton for an extramarital affair. The impeachment campaign was initiated by serial adulterer Newt Gingrich, briefly handed off to serial adulterer Bob Livingston, and finally concluded under the leadership of alleged child rapist Dennis Hastert. End result: the Clintons' approval ratings were higher than ever.
They're currently on the eighth (? -- hard to keep track) "investigation" of BENGHAZI ... because conservatives threw a temper tantrum when the previous seven investigations found no wrongdoing worth mentioning.
Like many left-of-center forons I'm not a huge fan of the Clintons. But when I look at the never-ending parade of groundless, vicious attacks and wacko conspiracy theories they've been subjected to, I have to grudgingly give them some respect for hanging in there.
Anyway, that's why the right wing tried to gin up some kind of vague "controversy" over the Clintons' charity foundation.
Because they're the Clintons. Inventing bizarre conspiracy theories and then demanding endless, decade-long "investigations" is what conservatives do when there's a Clinton around.