Yes, she’s very likely guilty of the bribery statutes.
But as Professor Foley notes, don’t expect Clinton-appointed prosecutors to do anything about it. We’re turning into a banana republic without the bananas.
[Sunday-morning update]
The Clintons’ favorite way of lying:
I need not dwell on the implausibility of roving bands of ninja-like naughty toddlers — or lone-wolf munchkins — breaking into nice homes to scribble on the upstairs walls and then depart leaving no other trace of their schemes. I simply bring this up to say that my daughter’s “a bad girl did it” gambit is a wildly more powerful and resolute claim of innocence than “you have no smoking gun.”
Yes. “You can’t prove it, copper” isn’t much of a defense in the face of the obvious, but the media continues to perversely admire them for how adroitly they can get away with corruption and lies. In a way, of course, they never would if the Clintons were Republicans.
[Bumped]
[Update a couple minutes later]
I should note, as a bonus, there is more disquisition on the merits of a President SMOD over a President Cthulthu at that last link. Including arguments over electability:
For starters, Cthulhu will never get the Evangelical vote. As a demonic beast who claims, if not sovereignty over, then at least co-equal status with the Almighty, Biblical conservatives will never pull a lever for some squid-faced Baal-wannabe. I can see Ralph Reed’s attack ads now.
Indeed.
Yes, we have no bananas. It’s getting harder and harder to be a smug American these days.
Sure you can point to people, countries, and companies giving large sums of money to the Clintons and you can point to these same people getting favorable treatment from the State Department but you have no proof that bribery took place!
Maybe this answers Steve Sailer’s question regarding Dennis Hastert and the difference between paying a blackmailer vs having the lawyers draft a “settlement” along with a “non-disclosure” agreement?
Maybe paying a blackmailer is not illegal, only telling the FBI that you “don’t trust banks” instead of being forthright that the money is for a blackmailer is the crime (i.e. telling a bald-faced lie to a Federal agent)? But if you are paying cash to a blackmailer you in addition to the blackmailer may be up against tax fraud for not reporting “gifts.” But if you get the lawyers involved, the blackmailer can threaten to sue you for something, you can pay a settlement without admitting to anything, and the blackmailer, er, plaintiff has to agree to a “gag order”, and everything is carefully drafted so the IRS gets their cut?
So maybe the Clinton Foundation is what the lawyers set up that you can accept all this money, and everything is OK because it is the legal mode of pay-for-play?
Just askin’.