WaPo: 4 Pinocchio's for Trump’s ‘pay-for-play’ attack on Clinton

In all, this is an almost nonexistent case for “pay-for-play.” Obama’s executive order, the result of discussions that included agencies besides the State Department, logically flows from administration policies. There is no evidence that Ericsson’s mobile business in Iran was ever under consideration to be part of the executive order — or that Bill Clinton’s speech five months earlier in Hong Kong played a role in what, ultimately, was an order signed by Obama.

One can certainly question the size of Bill Clinton’s speech fee — and whether it was appropriate, given his wife’s job as secretary of state. But that’s a different matter than suggesting that Ericsson influenced U.S. policy through the Hong Kong speech.

Interestingly, Trump has denied that he engaged in pay-for-play when his charitable foundation made a $25,000 donation to Pam Bondi, Florida’s attorney general, a few days after news reports indicated that Bondi’s office was reviewing complaints of deceptive practices against Trump University. After the donation was received, Bondi dropped the case. The donation was a violation of tax laws, but it was not noticed for several years because the Trump Foundation listed the donation in tax filings as a contribution to an unrelated group with a similar name as the Bondi’s political group. The foundation recently paid a fine for making an improper political contribution.

Perhaps it was all a coincidence, as Trump claims. But if his contribution to Bondi is not pay for play, by his standards, then he has even less evidence in the Ericsson case to level this charge against Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/12/trumps-thin-case-for-pay-for-play-regarding-clinton-and-ericsson/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_factchecker-840a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory