[Hoot Gibson]

⬆⬆ As far as the email server and the Clinton Foundation: the Clintons have a tendency to play fast and loose with the rules, then use deflection and deception to extricate themselves, or at least buy time and count on the "news cycle amnesia" of the general public. Whether or not this rises above the normal strategies of career politicians, that same public will decide I guess.

"Pay to play" is a serious charge. However, I have said many times that the monied elite, and I mean the real elite of the elite, have the ability to get phone calls through and face-to-face time with policy makers. If a jumpsuit were assembled with the patches of all donors and sponsors, and our politicians were required to wear that jumpsuit, we might get a more impactful visual on who the Puppet Masters really are. If it is proven that a big donation to the Clinton Foundation by "Entity X" directly led to a policy formed or changed that directly benefited "Entity X," I still contend that is not particularly unusual in the "cut a deal" world of politics. However, Secretary of State is pretty high up on the totem pole to be directly involved in pay to play machinations directly benefiting a Foundation in which one is so intimately involved.

Hillary Clinton claimed that she and her husband were flat broke in 2001, which was obviously an exaggeration. However, the couple was not impoverished.

Fast forward today. The couple has an estimated combined net worth of $111 million, with most of their income having been derived for speaking fees paid for by companies and individuals who either do business with the U.S. federal government or are directly impacted by the policies and regulations promulgated by the federal government.

Aside from the ability to influence the promulgation and enforcement or U.S. policies and regulations, what makes these two elderly politicians such a hot commodity on the speaking circuit? Why else would the Russian government pay Bill Clinton $500,000 for delivering a speech in Moscow while his wife served as Sec. of State, if not to influence the policies of the U.S. government?

A smoking gun may be required to place the Clintons where they belong - behind bars, but it is very clear that the Clintons did not impart $111 million of wisdom to their paying customers over the past 15 years.

If you apply Occam's Razor to the question of how two people who have no recent experience working in the private sector, have no specialized knowledge of anything aside from winning elections, and are not particularly gifted speakers, managed to accumulate so much wealth in such a short period of time, then you will know what the Clintons' customers received for their payments. Not with the certainty required for criminal conventions, but more than enough to convict both in the court of public opinion.