I want anyone prosecuted who is stealing a charities money. That is protecting the country, it's people and the rule of law. You're the one saying it's okay that the Clinton's are stealing a charities money because they aren't in politics.
If you want to play by your rules though, The accusations against the Trump foundations were prior to him being president.
Doesn't matter to me though. Prosecute all the criminals no matter when the crimes occurred (baring any statue of limitations considerations).
I agree with you that anyone who has stolen a charity's money for their own gain, or used a charity as a front for something else should be prosecuted. However, the hard evidence that the Clinton's used the Clinton Foundation for their own benefit either financially or politically is about as plentiful as hard evidence Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring out of a Washington DC pizza parlor. But the evidence that there were fishy things about Trump's foundation is plentiful.
The Clinton's have been investigated mercilessly by the Republicans every chance they get for over 20 years. First it was White Water, then other White House "scandals" like travelgate and Vince Foster's suicide. Kenneth Starr had very broad powers and the scope of his investigation into the Clintons was wider than Mueller's into Trump. Despite all the digging, the only thing Kenneth Starr was able to come up with was a possible lie under oath about a sexual affair. I say possible because the judge in the case had defined "sexual relations" as intercourse and that didn't happen. Under the judge's definition, Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, but in the court of public opinion, he lied. It would have been smarter for Clinton to claim relevance with the question.
When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, the slime campaign started up again. As soon as the Republicans got control of the House they started investigating her for Benghazi. The destruction of the US consulate in Benghazi is a tragedy. But the Republicans turned over every rock for years and quietly disbanded the special sub-committee because despite what could be called a real witch hunt type investigation, they found no wrong doing.
Hillary Clinton's e-mail issues were also blown way out of proportion. She is a technophobe and only wanted to use a Blackberry for all her correspondence, both private and business. US government IT infrastructure is way behind the private sector and it was common for the Secretary of State to use some other e-mail address. Colin Powell used an AOL address. Other SoSs used other commercial e-mail addresses. The Clintons brought in a top expert to set up their private e-mail server. Because it was on a domain that was unknown to all but a few people, and the people with access to the server was very limited, it was easy to tamp down security on the server to a level that is impossible with either a commercial or government server.
Because of the hair on fire the Republicans had about Hillary's e-mail server, a law got passed requiring the SoS to use government e-mail only, which every SoS since Clinton has used. She left office right when the law went into effect, so it did not affect her.
The Republicans continue to go on about her private e-mail server despite the fact she turned over relevant e-mails to the government archives as part of the Presidential Records Act. Contrast that with many in the White House today using private e-mail to conduct government business despite the law the Republicans passed outlawing the practice.
The hypocrisy that chaps my hide about Republicans and the conservative media's coverage is that
a) Republicans can flaunt the law and that's OK, but if there is even an unsubstantiated rumor a Democrat broke a law that didn't exist when they were in office they are guilty.
b) Any evidence of wrong doing by a Republican is "fake news", any rumor of wrongdoing by a Democrat, even if physically impossible, is the absolute truth.
Looking at the hard evidence that has turned up about the Clintons, Hillary had some sloppy practice keeping personal and work e-mails separate, but there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on her part. The Clinton Foundation may have some sloppy paperwork practices, but again there is no evidence of criminal intent or any outright crimes being committed.
On the other hand, the Trump Foundation had a track record of giving very little to actual charitable causes and at least some of the money in the foundation's coffers went to benefit Trump personally. Trump also pledged a fair amount to the charity, but gave very little of his own money to it. From what we know from Michael Cohen, Trump committed a number of financial crimes over the time Cohen knew him.
The conservative media very steeply discounts wrongdoing on the part of Trump and greatly inflates any wrongdoing/mistakes on the part of the Clintons to make the Clintons look worse. But I live in a world of facts. Not all the facts are in, but from what I've seen thus far there seems to be a lot of criminal activity in the Trump camp, and in the Clinton camp some incompetence, but nothing done with criminal intent. Even very, very partisan investigations into the Clintons have turned up very, very little. There are quite a few Republicans turning up very clear crimes on Trump's part.
To verify the veracity of a story, I first check for internal consistency. Does the story stand up by itself? For example the pizza-gate stories don't stand up on their own. Next I check many news sources. Some stories are a big deal in the right wing media circles, but if there is anything outside of those circles, it's fact checking that debunks the stories. There is a vast array of news sources outside the conservative sphere ranging from media sources owned by large corporate entities down to small organizations or even individuals digging out stuff themselves. I look for organizations that can present some kind of factual evidence for their claims that holds together on its own.
That isn't a guarantee the story is true, but I'm deeply suspicious of any story that only exists in the conservative media. The journalistic standards in those circles is very poor and takes a backseat to the political motives.
It is much too soon to engage in "horse race" analysis of the Democratic primaries, but some experts are forthright about their criteria which I found eliminating.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-how-were-defining-a-major-presidential-candidate/
All of it makes sense, but unless I missed it there is no discussion of policy considerations as a category for candidate preference which is what most voters will at least pretend is their ranking measure. Nonetheless, Silver covers his rear because restricted to "objective measures," and by that standard he does a great job.
At this early stage with a plethora of candidates, a practical thing we should do now is discuss, and measure the discussion, of the likely
platform of the Party. It is never too late to have that openly discussed in my unhumble opinion. That will happen in the course of the campaign but in a defused and hap-hazard way. Help!, Nate.
I think most Americans to the left of Atilla the Hun these days are waiting for the Democratic field to slim down a bit before they pay much attention. I think most feel similar to me. I want two things in my next president:
1) Someone who can beat Trump, or whoever replaces him on the 2020 ticket if he isn't there for one reason or another.
2) Someone competent to repair the damage Trump has wrought.
Beyond that, I don't care who is the Democratic nominee. So far all have flaws that concern me, but I think all could beat Trump and all would probably be able to do something to fix the country, though none stand out in that regard.
