IS Hillary Clinton receiving "backdoor financing from benefactors beyond what they could legally donate?" As the author of this well-reported, well-reasoned piece notes, "The proximity between the Clintons’ new-found wealth and Hillary Clinton’s presidential run" has begun raising eyebrows.

The information on funds flowing into Bill Clinton and the Clinton library are informative. The tint of financing scandal is clear. If you assume Hillary is the best candidate, this story is fodder for the argument for having voter-owned publicly financed elections to remove the need for such huge fortunes in order to succeed in politics.

Very informative examination into Hillary Clinton's financial entanglements. I think the piece is unfair in that it does not, even cursorily, look at the fundraising tactics of other Democrats or the Republicans running this year. Is it possible that when you're raising so much money for a Presidential campaign, these kinds of connections inevitably surface? I found the tone of the piece not very objective.

This is precisely why I cannot support, and almost certainly would not vote for Hillary Clinton in any case. I am an "independent" voter with leanings definitely toward the Democratic Party, but Hillary Clinton is a follow-on to one of the greatest politicians of my life (Bill Clinton), and as such is not at all trustworthy, in my opinion. Obama has suggested "change" and now Hillary pretends to be a force for change, but she is 100 percent political, and th is seems to confirm that whe would sell her soul to achieve her ambition. I have little doubt that the "loan" will be repaid by illegal contributions from her weatlthy supporters.

Yet another anti-Cllinton piece tying loose threads together to make accusations that may not, and probably are not, true. Asking whether such and such a fact might lead to such and such an outcome is note good journalism. Speculative writing with a specific bias.