Garbage analysis, and here’s why.
First of all, privileged access for donors is corruption and illegal, regardless of what the outcome of the meetings may have been. That needs to be cleared up, because many people defending the Clintons and the foundation have conflated “quid pro quo” with Hillary making a favorable decision on a particular case. No. Access itself is a favor.
Second, the evidence the author asks for may not exist. Does anybody really think that Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton let themselves be voice recorded, “Well, he is a big donor, so you have to see him?” Of course not. But the author takes the position that absent a voice recording like that, or its equivalent, there is no story here. Move along. Nothing to see.
Take lung cancer. There has never been a case of lung cancer in the history of medicine that can be ascribed to smoking with 100% certainty. There is always another possible explanation. It could have been the air conditioning, the factory next door, or genetic predisposition.
So why do we think that smoking causes lung cancer? In a word, numbers. We look at the numbers, and after a while a pattern is established. No single case can be proven, but no reasonable person denies the general association.
But if we used the author’s standard to determine culpability for cigarettes, we would have to conclude that smoking was not dangerous. Actually, the author takes it a step further. Nobody should even publish the numbers!
And industry would use much the same rhetoric to defend cigarettes that the author uses to defend Hillary Clinton.
“Nothing has been proven. Ever! Not a single case! This is an unfair campaign to tear down an American industry that employs tens of thousands of people. They’ve been after us for years! When will the persecution stop?”
It’s fair to argue about what the numbers in the Clinton Foundation story mean, but to imply that there’s no story at all?