Time for Clinton to take the questions

H illary Clinton should conduct a news conference and answer every question about the continuing controversy over her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state and address suggestions that large donations to the Clinton Foundation gave individuals special access to her office while secretary.

Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, is doing herself no favors with her continuing strategy to duck reporters. If she has nothing to hide, she should stand up and take the questions. Instead Clinton, with each new revelation, has let spokesmen and spin masters deal with the press. The result is continued erosion in her credibility.

Perhaps she sees her lead in the polls, both nationally and in key battleground states, and calculates that handpicked interviews and crafted campaign statements are the safest path to the White House. That could prove to be a disastrous miscalculation for her and the country.

In recent days the public learned that the FBI during its investigation discovered another 14,900 emails from Clinton’s time as secretary of state. These were either emails deleted during the normal course of business or categorized by Clinton’s lawyers as personal, but judged otherwise by the FBI. The State Department still needs to review the emails before release. A judge has ordered the department to expedite that process. It should.

FBI Director James Comey had access to the emails in making his determination that Clinton’s use of the private server, while “extremely careless,” did not constitute criminal behavior.

Also this week the Associated Press examined the record of Clinton’s meetings while secretary with people who were not foreign government representatives or federal employees. The review, covering the first half of Clinton’s tenure, found that 85 of the 154 people “outside the government” who met with or talked on the phone with Clinton had donated to the foundation.

If people were buying access with their charitable donations, that’s a problem. But some perspective is in order.

The Clinton Foundation is a charitable organization created by President Clinton after leaving office in 2001. The 11 nonprofit groups lumped under its umbrella focus on several broad issues — economic development, improving opportunities for women, addressing climate change, and global health and wellness. The foundation estimates that more than 430 million people in about 180 countries have benefited from its efforts. Charity Watch gives it an “A” rating with $325 million in contributions in 2014 and 88 percent of the money raised spent directly on programs.

It is not shocking that individuals and corporations giving large donations to the Clinton Foundation, and often other global initiatives, would seek the ear of the secretary of state. So far, at least, there has been no demonstration of any quid pro quo of the State Department taking actions in return for foundation donations.

Which is not to say there is not a problem. The public needs assurances that Secretary Clinton — and a future President Clinton — is acting only in the national interest, uncolored by favors owed to any foreign interests or individuals who donated generously to her family foundation.

Bill Clinton has announced that if his wife wins the election, he will resign from the foundation board. The foundation would accept donations only from U.S. citizens and spin off foreign-based programs and fundraising to other charities to continue the good work.

Don’t wait. Bill Clinton should suspend his connection to the foundation now and the process of moving its fundraising and charitable work to other agencies should begin immediately. Don’t contribute to the perception that those making donations in the next few weeks may be seeking access to a future president and her spouse.

In the context of the challenges confronting the nation — the need to strengthen the middle class, address persistent pockets of poverty, fix health care, install fairer tax policy and fiscal balance, combat terrorism and address global threats — the kerfuffle over foundation donors is a relative sideshow. This is more reason for Hillary Clinton to confront it and move on.

The major focus of the 2016 presidential campaign is that one party, the Democrats, are offering a candidate, as flawed as she may be, who is presenting reasonable proposals and has extensive experience in foreign and domestic policy.

Republicans offer a candidate whose proposals are as shallow and as seemingly impermanent as the puddles left by a summer shower. His strategy is to gin up votes through fear and division.

Setting aside the daily churn of headlines, one candidate, Clinton, is well qualified, while the Republican nominee is unfit for the office.