What does Hillary have to do for it to be ‘corruption’?

Great question

I wonder how the news media would handle the story if someone with an iPhone captured Hillary Clinton getting handed a white envelope stuffed with unmarked $100 bills in a hotel ladies’ room. Would some veteran Beltway pundit go on CNN or MSNBC to declare, “I would say that the optics of this doesn’t look great.” Would another talking head chime in to say: “Yes, she accepted the cash, but there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo….White envelopes stuffed with cash can get you access, but that’s all”?
To be clear, I don’t think Hillary Clinton or the people around her take white envelopes stuffed with cash in the rest room. A) They’re not from Philly B) I’m not a huge fan of Hillary’s ethical choices, but I don’t think it’s anywhere that bad and C) Even if you do assume the worse, who would go the old-fashioned bribery route when Goldman Sachs is dangling a check for 225,000 quid in return for 30 or 40 minutes of light prose?

That said, I’ve been really flabbergasted these past few days over the verbal gyrations that folks in the mainstream media have been performing to label the odd doings at the Clinton Foundation — and its disturbing overlaps with Hillary Clinton’s duties as Secretary of State — as anything but corruption. I guess it depends on what your definition of the word “corruption” is. These days, I’m starting to wonder if that word has any meaning left.

Read it all here