If people perceive a potential conflict of interest that's the price you pay for taking money from questionable companies with dubious histories of using politicians to increase their power and profitability.

Hillary made the choice to take millions from bankers. She has every right to. But as a political candidate running for the highest office in the land voters also have the right to question if such a person is right to lead our country.

But $275,000 to tell Goldman Sachs they should all be in prison? You'd better believe it. And I'd publish those transcripts in every forum that'd have them.

So why won't Hillary? And why was she invited back?

I don't think she's there to burn it down. They want to hear her take on current events and something about her experiences.

but won't be (for obvious reasons).

One thing I can say for sure, Wall Street has not funneled millions to Hillary because they like her choice of designer pantsuits.

They want to know about the real life issues that impact their lives, not these esoteric battlecries that only serve to rally the most ardent demagogues. There might be fools aplenty, but no one is being fooling the voters who are focused on their own interests. People have more important priorities and concerns, like who has the chops, the clout and gravitas, the experience, to effectively deal with the uncompromising Republican tribalism to actually get something done.

...that affects people's daily lives.

It damn well is an issue to voters.

or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data".

So your theory is that CLINTON wants this controversy to continue?