Why?  Because of the advertising revenues.  If you knock a candidate out of the race his ads go away and his opposite spends less as well.  Media needs the biennial and quadrennial campaign billions.

There is as little incentive for a candidate to be truthful as there is for a journalist to seriously question a candidate's truthfulness.

Are you aware there was an audit done when Hillary because SOS?

People who believe otherwise in the absence of facts are mistaken.

People who insist otherwise in the face of evidence to the contrary are delusional.

People who imply otherwise by misstatement and omission of facts are duplicitous.

I won't be baited into arguing with others about this manufactured issue, because I simply refuse to acknowledge the validity of their baseless contentions.

1.  Claimed Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse benefited from a stock sale because of his position in the U.S. Senate - forced to retract when there were numerous factual problems with his claims, including the fact that Whitehouse wasn't even a member of the committee that Schweizer claimed.

2.  Al Gore - he claimed Gore was receiving $20,000/year in zinc mine royalties from a mine that was, in fact, closed.  USA Today had to issue a correction

3.  Obama - Claimed Obama skipped more than half of his intelligence briefings.  Schweizer got 3 Pinnochios for this silly claim.

4.  Pelosi - attacked her as a hypocrite for using non-union workers at her vineyard, despite the fact that she hired workers who were paid a higher rate than union workers and it would have been illegal (as the FWA noted) for her to even discuss a union contract - the only way to upply union workers.

6)  Rep. Jim McDermott (D) - Falsely claimed that Jim McDermott committed insider trading related to a Bioterrorism bill.  Debunked in follow-up pieces by the Seattle Times - "unfair, "Inaccurate" "specious"

And numerous examples where his "sources" didn't match his claims or didn't exist.

  Obviously, nothing the Clintons do can be considered dubious let alone ill befitting a Presidential candidate.

  Surely, if anything they do were to raise legitimate questions a book would be written by  a Democratic supporter of Ms. Clinton because her supporters care far more about truth and propriety than they do anything else and they would be the first to call attention to anything that might be considered troubling if someone other than the Clintons did it.

   The very fsct the book was not written by one of her supporters is all the proof you should need to know it cannot possibly contain anything but lies.

Is good

1. Companies contributed money to the CGI.(a private non-governmental philanthropic foundation.

2. Yet, the United States of America, Department of State administered them? With Hillary Clinton at the helm, no less??

   and, as any lawyer will explain to you circumstantial evidence is evidence and people get held liable in civil actions and even convicted of crimes based on reasonable inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

  Short of someone coming forward and admitting they gave money to curry favor and gain the benefit of the Clintons' influence or the even less likely event of the Clintons or someone who was present with them when donations were brokered stating a favor was offered in exchange for a donation obviously there will be no "smoking gun."

   I think you guys are too wrapped in the cocoon to understand that circumstantial evidence of unseemly (but not criminal) conduct will be a factor many people who are undecided will weigh in making their decision.