Clinton’s campaign, however, sharply pushed back, saying the report relied on “utterly flawed data”.
Advertisement
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its global programs.
“Those who are wavering right now are just as likely to be thinking about supporting a third-party candidate instead, and not between Clinton and Trump”, said Tom Smith, who directs the Centre for the Study of Politics and Society at the University of Chicago.
STUART VARNEY (HOST): This late report from the AP, roughly half the people who had meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had contributed money to the foundation.
Trump certainly has a chance to prevail in the Show Me State, said pollster Patrick Murray.
The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009.
“The amounts involved, the favors done and the significant number of times it was done require an expedited investigation by a special prosecutor immediately, immediately, immediately”, Trump told a rally in Akron, Ohio, speaking of the State Department under Clinton. “No one is above the law”.
“This is among the strongest and most unmistakable pieces of evidence of what we’ve long suspected: at Hillary Clinton’s State Department, access to the most sensitive policy makers in USA diplomacy was for sale to the highest bidder”, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.
Advertisement
Clinton stepped down from the Foundation’s board in April 2015 when she chose to run for U.S. president. Luckily, Wolverhampton had a fan in Hollywood sports executive Casey Wasserman, who donated between $5M and $10M to the Clinton Foundation. Trump’s campaign and Republicans have sought to cast suspicion over Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and argued that foreign donors’ contributions to the foundation created inevitable conflict-of-interest questions.
