Clinton Foundation stories: Where's the other side, where's the scandal?

Aug. 30, 2016 5 AM PT

To the editor: I think the author has made a significant point about Hillary Clinton’s health.

It is also worth noting that the medical reports issued by each of the two major candidates — Clinton and Donald Trump — could not be more disparate.

( “I’m so tired of hearing that Clinton is tired,” Opinion, Aug. 25, “Billionaire’s Clinton ties face scrutiny,” Aug. 28, and “Smoke surrounds the Clinton Foundation,” Opinion, Aug. 28)

Clinton’s medical condition is reported by a physician (an internist) using standard, acceptable medical terminology.

On the other hand, Trump’s physician, using the vernacular, issued a short letter that claims that Trump will be the healthiest person to ever serve as president.

And Rudy Giuliani’s spurious claims about Clinton’s health, as he stumps for Trump, are so ridiculous as to call into question his own current mental faculties.

Trump should release an authentic medical report, and while he’s at it, he should also release his tax returns.

Marcia Herman, Los Angeles

To the editor: There is little doubt that the Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good work.

In spite of that, the press has emphasized the conflict of interest with Hillary Clinton as the presidential candidate.

Of course, the Clintons have been careless in some of their actions, giving the GOP machine very good “excuses” to attack them. The Clintons might have reduced these attacks by divesting themselves from their foundation.

Looking at the other side, though, has Trump divested himself from his company?

Should he not have put his business interest in a trust if he really wants to become president of the U.S. to avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest?

Domenico Maceri, San Luis Obispo

To the editor: Regarding yet another negative front-page article about Clinton, I see a Pulitzer in your future — for equivocation.

Oh sure, editorially, you will endorse Clinton over Trump, albeit with much hand-wringing over her “faults.”

I could have sworn that I heard and read somewhere that she was a excellent senator and an excellent secretary of State. I have even watched some speeches where she goes into great detail about what she wants to accomplish as president.

As for the Clinton Foundation, I doubt you would flinch if it shut down, though so many would die.

I have been to Africa and seen and heard about the foundation’s work there. No, what is more important is the “perception” or “appearance” of something not proved. Again, “true” (equal number of negative stories) journalism.

Keith Frohreich, Anaheim Hills

To the editor: With the unending attacks on the Clinton Foundation and possible conflicts of interest regarding two people who have dedicated their lives to public service, why has no sustained effort been made by editorial and opinion writers to raise questions about Trump’s obvious conflicts with his business interests if he becomes president?

He has properties all over the world with his name plastered on most of them and anything he did or said as president could have an effect on his investments. How are those to be resolved?

What if he decides to default on one of his loans and throws another one of his properties into bankruptcy, dealing with a judge appointed by the president? The conflicts are overwhelming.

How about a little equal treatment here? Go after the most impossible-to-resolve conflict there could possibly be when a president owns real estate, encumbered by the Chinese government, no less.

John Rothman, Tarzana

To the editor: After reading this long article, my response is: And...?

Gilbert Chagoury is apparently a philanthropist who gives to a lot of different places.

As for the Clintons, like all the other articles I have read about the foundation, there is neither a quid nor a quo. Chagoury gave money that was of no benefit to the Clintons and got nothing in return. Why is this even a story?

Gary Page, Hemet

To the editor: What is the conclusion of this piece? The headline implies some major scandal, but it doesn’t deliver. It contains a lot of random facts and “he said, she said” about Chagoury, who turns out to be your standard wheeler-dealer.

Doug Band of the Clinton Global Initiative has caused a lot of trouble by soliciting State Department access for donors, but this is unfortunately what fundraisers do. There is no evidence cited that anything illegal happened.

This piece seems a typical example of mainstream media intimidation resulting from continual right-wing charges of liberal bias. There results a tendency, in order to appear balanced, to match one-for-one every critical piece about Trump or Republicans with a critical piece about Clinton.

So, the fact that people try (but apparently not succeed in this case) to get special favors from donations (an everyday occurrence in Washington) is given equal weight and presumably cancels out blame for the Republican Party’s denial of climate change or Trump’s flirtation with white supremacists. The scale is not balanced.

Donald Burnett, Arcadia

To the editor: The Clinton Foundation funds a range of philanthropic causes worldwide. As such, it seems reasonable that donations from wealthy foreigners would be accepted. I am tired of the news media microscopically examining every transaction, every email, every interaction, and implying nefarious motives or conflicts. Please, if you are going to cover the Clinton Foundation, balance your coverage by mentioning the good that has come from the foundation work as well.

William Prothero, Santa Barbara

To the editor: Doyle McManus believes the Clintons helped save millions of lives around the world.

Are foreign governments incapable of administering the work undertaken by the Clintons? Is there no other foundation on the planet capable of carrying on good work?

Shuttering the foundation and initiative would demonstrate integrity and help restore Americans’ trust in those we elect to positions of power.

Julia Lutch, Davis

To the editor: The front-page piece on the Clinton Foundation did a great disservice to both charities in general, and the Clintons in particular.

The foundation has helped millions of people worldwide. And yes, it is an international foundation with many wealthy foreign contributors, some most certainly being a bit sleazy, just like any group of super-wealthy individuals.

And yes, many of them may be looking for access to American politicians, just like the thousands who contribute to political campaigns. Isn’t that the way American politics works? Only in this case, the end result is help for millions who need it.

Give the Clintons credit for what they have done, in contrast to Trump, who bilks thousands like me out of so many dollars for his own “charity.”

Phil Kirk, Encinitas

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook