I'm going to write about this at length for the magazine, but this is the brilliant Chris Hayes three-box segment I'll be talking about. In the first part, he asks the anti-Hillary Clinton version of an ED-209, David Sirota, to make his best case against the foundation as a "corrupt" enterprise, then tosses to Boston Globe columnist Michael Cohen, who explains how everything about this story ends up with the donor not getting preferential treatment. Watch Sirota shake his head while Cohen talks:
So, I'm thinking great, I'm about to hear the very best argument there is for why Hillary Clinton actually was influenced, because even if Sirota isn't always fair to Hillary, he's thorough. If there's something anywhere to remotely suggest anything resembling a quid pro quo, Sirota is about to drop it on me.
Except here's what happens:
"We can't know?" That's the sort of thing that makes for a fun topic of discussion at your Drinking Liberally meeting, not a case for torpedoing a presidential candidacy and dismantling a hugely successful and beneficial charitable foundation.
And so it is that Chris Hayes' summation is perfect: the foundation can't continue as it is simply because of the noise. That's really fucking sad.