This would be the death knell for the GOP

Again. Ignorance or just refusing to recignize facts?
The Clintons didn't ring up $50 million dollars in private planes. The Clinton foundation, which sends hundreds of Doctors and aid workers around the world reported air transport expenses of that amount planes. .
The whole idea of the foundation is to send help to remote regions, areas one cant get to via the monorail.

So, you've now learned( hopefully) that Hilary wasn't running around getting $750,000 an hour for speeches and she didn't spend $50 million dollars on private
planes. Any other mistaken notions I can help you with? It saddens me to see a grown man made moronic statements constantly. Learn to filter.

I next you'll tell us that the Clinton's didn't get paid $152 million in speaking fees. How funny you are. Do you really do this with a straight face.........come on, I gotta know?

The awful truth is because they know she will play ball to a certain extent. However, the equally awful truth you must face is that the Republican party establishment, while they prefer a Republican like Mitt Romney because they will get 100% of what they want from a guy like that, will ending up supporting Hillary this election because they see Trump as too unpredictable and unbeholden to them.

Of course you have data to back that up, just like the last two things you claimed, right?
Bill Clinton has been a highly paid speaker for the last sixteen years. Eight million a year? I thought your type supported the free market?

The Clintons are selling power, access and favors. They've sold get out of jail free cards, for example. Well, "Get out of jail in return for tens of millions of dollars", would be more accurate.

Billy, you're in a weird predicament. You have to admit to being so unbelievably stupid that you believe that Hillary isn't selling favors, OR you have to admit that you don't care that she's selling favors.

Why courts and grand juries grant immunity:

Immunity from Prosecution

State and federal statutes may grant witnesses immunity from prosecution for the use of their testimony in court or before a grand jury. Sometimes, the testimony of one witness is so valuable to the goals of crime prevention and justice that the promise of allowing that witness to go unpunished is a fair trade. For example, a drug dealer's testimony that could help law enforcement to destroy an entire illegal drug-manufacturing network is more beneficial to society than is the prosecution of that lone drug dealer. Although the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants witnesses a Privilege against Self-Incrimination, the U.S. Supreme Court has permitted prosecutors to overcome this privilege by granting witnesses immunity. Prosecutors have the sole discretion to grant immunity to witnesses who appear before a grand jury or at trial.

States employ one of two approaches to prosecutorial immunity: Use immunity prohibits only the witness's compelled testimony, and evidence stemming from that testimony, from being used to prosecute the witness. The witness still may be prosecuted so long as the prosecutor can obtain other physical, testimonial, or Circumstantial Evidence apart from the witness's testimony. Transactional immunity completely immunizes the witness from prosecution for any offense to which the testimony relates.

Ref: The Free Dictionary - Legal Dictionary

i.e. Immunity is granted to compel testimony from a presumed knowledgeable witness of criminal activity against someone else who remains subject to prosecution for that criminal activity.
Just because The Hillary's personal Information Technology Guru has been granted such immunity does not prove that the criminal activity is related to The Hillary. It could be somebody else altogether. And this goes for anyone else who may have been granted immunity. Their proximity to The Hillary may just be coincidental.

DonDiego presumes everyone innocent until conviction.

The awful truth hurts.

I don't agree with many of malibber's comments, but I think he's right on the money with this one.

People who support Citizens United and classify money as "free speech" dont have any business complaining about pay-for-play politics. And neither do people who complain when super-pacs are scrutinized for their tax-exempt status. Know anybody like that on this thread?

The current Democrat in the White House and both Democrats running for the White House support legislatively killing Citizen's United. Thats not far enough and much more needs to be done. But lets not kid ourselves. Democrats have the higher ground on this issue....even if that higher ground is still in the swamp.

In other words...."Yeah our politicians are owned by the lobbyists too...but we're better than the Republicans because some of our politicians who are owned by the lobbyists are against our politicians being owned by the lobbyists."