- The 2016 presidential election has been filled with scandals for both candidates
- Hillary Clinton has faced numerous scandals, including Whitewater and Benghazi, but investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing
- The email scandal surrounding Clinton involved her use of a private server and mishandling of classified information, but no criminal charges were brought against her
- The Clinton Foundation has faced controversy over potential conflicts of interest with donations from individuals and foreign governments
- Despite these scandals, many Americans are still concerned about Clinton's honesty and trustworthiness.

- The Clinton Foundation promised to disclose all donations and get approval for foreign government donations, but some slipped through.
- One concerning donation involved Algeria donating $500,000, but there is no proof of State Department policy being swayed.
- Another concerning donation involved Russia, where the State Department approved the sale of a uranium mine to Russia while a foundation controlled by the mine's chairman made donations to the Clinton Foundation.
- The donations were not publicly disclosed, which is concerning.
- However, Hillary Clinton was not involved in the decision, and multiple federal agencies had to sign off on it.
- While the Clinton Foundation scandals are irritating, they are not grossly nefarious.
- Comparatively, Donald Trump has a higher percentage of false statements and has not released his tax returns or put his assets in a blind trust.
- Trump's foundation has also been used for personal expenses and illegal political donations.
- There are ongoing lawsuits against Trump's university, allegations of using undocumented workers, and receiving an illegal loan from his father.

The campaign has been filled with scandals, but it is important to recognize that there are more scandals on Trump's side than Hillary's. While Hillary has some ethical failings, Trump is ethically compromised to an unprecedented degree. So, even if you don't like Hillary's scandals, you'll have to accept them because Trump's scandals are much worse.

The 2016 presidential election has been filled with scandals for both candidates. Hillary Clinton has faced controversies including Whitewater, Benghazi, and the email scandal, but investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing. The Clinton Foundation has also faced scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest with donations. Despite these scandals, many Americans are still concerned about Clinton's honesty and trustworthiness. Comparatively, Donald Trump has a higher percentage of false statements and has been involved in scandals such as using his foundation for personal expenses and illegal political donations. Overall, while Clinton has some ethical failings, Trump is ethically compromised to a greater degree.

The 2016 presidential race is teeming with raisins. Sorry…scandals.

Connect with Last Week Tonight online...
Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight

Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would:
http://Facebook.com/LastWeekTonight

Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news:
http://Twitter.com/LastWeekTonight

Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once:
http://www.hbo.com/lastweektonight

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ The 2016 presidential election, or, as it's more commonly known, the electoral equivalent of seeing someone puking, so you start puking and then someone else is puking, and pretty soon everyone is puking 2016.

The first presidential debate is tomorrow night.

More than 100 million people could be watching 2 candidates whose campaigns have been defined less by questions about their policies than their ethics.

Every day is another drip, drip, drip of scandal for Hillary Clinton.

Too many scandals have followed her and Bill Clinton over the

Another booming scandal of the day with him, but there are so many, it's hard to keep track.

Listen, we have had scandals during campaigns in the past, from Barack Obama's financial dealings with Tony Rescoe, to George W.

Bush's Air National Guard service, to the revelation that Dwight D.

Eisenhower's middle initial stood for D's Nuts.

But this campaign, This campaign, the scandals have been so pronounced.

Polls show that less than half the electorate sees either candidate as honest or trustworthy.

And you may not like either candidate for good reasons.

But, if you are still somehow torn about which 1 to vote for, and are factoring their scandals into your decision, we thought it might help to spend tonight walking you through them.

So let's start with Hillary Clinton, the woman who, if she loses, will sit there motionless, not speaking, until she eventually dies.

And I do know that even talking about her scandals will irritate some of you, given that her opponent is an unambiguously racist scarecrow stuffed with scrunched up copies of Jugs magazine, and that's fair.

But, not being as bad as Donald Trump is a low bar to clear.

And if you focus on nothing but him, you fail to vet a woman who might be president.

And if you believe the Internet, she's guilty of everything.

Just click around, and you can find such masterworks as Killary Clinton, Hillary ordered the murder of the children of Waco.

And my personal favorite, is Hillary Clinton Satan?

And, you know, that's in quotes on the Internet, so she must have said it.

Although, to be fair, she could have been referring to her time as the New Jersey Devil's mascot.

Now, many of Hillary's most famous scandals have been heavily litigated in the past.

Now, more than 6 years of investigations by 3 different prosecutors and multiple congressional committees failed to find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.

Now, 8 congressional investigations broadly concluded the State Department could have done more to increase security at the embassy, but none found evidence of wrongdoing by Clinton.

And then, there is the problematic issue of the Swiss file transfer.

And while, yes, investigators found Hillary was in Zurich at the time of the transfer, and documents show she was aware the transfer took place, and yes, the Clintons did have something to gain financially from it, The fact is, the Swiss file transfer is something I just made up right now.

But the very fact that for a second, you kind of remembered it, says something about the tone of coverage surrounding Clinton.

But many, but many rational people are still worried about 2 particular scandals.

It turns out nearly half of all Americans are very concerned about both her emails and the Clinton Foundation.

So let's start with the emails, which you may remember from their starring role at the Republican National Convention.

She put our nation's security at extremely high risk with her careless use of a private email server.

Hillary Clinton cared more about protecting her own secrets than she cared about protecting America's secrets.

She jeopardized the American people, our national security, with her secret email server.

Okay, Hillary's emails were basically the unofficial theme of the RNC, right alongside, how loud can Giuliani scream, and Happy Days residuals can't buy you attention.

But while some of Hillary's opponents feel her email scandal should put her in prison, at least at the beginning, she claimed there was nothing to see.

There was no law, there was no regulation, there was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate.

And people across the government knew that I used 1 device.

Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.

People get a real-time, behind-the-scenes look at, you know, what I was emailing about and what I was communicating about.

Now, that is a bad answer for a number of reasons.

First, she says, everything I did was permitted, which isn't remotely true.

The use of a private email server would have required prior approval, and she never asked for it.

Then, she blames not being technically capable, which is a fine excuse for your dad when he accidentally texts you the letter Q 10 times, but it's pretty shitty coming from a secretary of state.

And then she caps it off by saying the whole thing is kind of fun, which it definitely isn't, unless every single 1 of her emails was just a JPEG of a dog dressed as Dracula, in which case, yeah, you know what?

So, there have been exaggerations on both sides, And while she's since acknowledged that her use of the server was a mistake, the idea persists that it was a good deal more.

So let's walk through what we actually know.

Hillary claims this started due to a simple tech issue, because when she took office in 2009, department-issued BlackBerrys couldn't access 2 different email accounts.

Clinton said today it was more convenient for her to carry 1 device instead of separate devices for work and personal emails.

it would have been better for me to use 2 separate phones and 2 email accounts.

I thought using 1 device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn't worked out that way.

So, this whole situation could potentially have been avoided if she just had the ability to carry 2 blackberries.

Meaning it's the only time the best advice a politician could have received was cargo shorts.

So, if she wanted 1 phone, she had a few options.

First, use a state.gov email address for all her emails, meaning her personal emails would reside on government servers, potentially making them more accessible to requests for public records.

So instead, Hillary sent everything through a non-government address.

It's a practice that's legal, but highly discouraged.

Although, she is by no means the only 1 who has done that.

Others include Colin Powell, John Kerry, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Martin O'Malley, Greg Abbott, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Ashton Carter, and Karl Rove.

And EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had a different workaround, using a second government email under the alias Richard Windsor, which turned out to be a mashup of her dog's name and her family's hometown.

So she was basically doing government business under her porn name, which cannot catch on, because nobody wants me writing to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro at bud.thunderjunk at hud.bone.

But Hillary went much further than just having a private email.

She had her own private server, and it wasn't just any old server.

To put an email server at your house is not a...

It is the system that my husband's, personal office used when he got out of the White House.

And so, it was sitting there in the basement.

You used a server that Bill Clinton had been using, which was in your basement.

I hate to tell you this, but you just stored government records on a machine that Bill called the Pornmaster 5000.

Now, the private server wasn't the only way Hillary communicated.

There was a separate official government system for classified information.

Unfortunately, some emails sent to Hillary did contain pieces of information that were classified in nature.

The FBI found 113 such emails, though in fairness, only 3 of them had classification markers and were not in the header of the email as they should have been.

And while the FBI found Clinton and her staff to be extremely careless, they said they couldn't find a case that would support bringing criminal charges.

So it's not good, but it's not as bad as it looks.

Which is never a satisfying thing to hear.

Or, indeed, read above the buffet at a Golden Corral.

Let's now move on to the Clinton Foundation.

6 months ago, it was known as the top-rated global foundation that has, among other things, helped millions around the world access lower-cost HIV treatment.

But it has now become possibly the only charity that inspires more visceral anger than this 1.

One-eight-seven-seven Cars for Kids ♪ ♪ K-A-R-S Cars for Kids ♪ ♪ One-eight-seven-seven Cars for Kids ♪ ♪ Donate your car today

What money laundering scheme are you operating?

The point is, the controversy with the Clinton Foundation is not so much what they did with their money, it's the possible conflict of interest in taking donations from individuals and foreign governments with business before the State Department.

And to be fair, in 2008, the foundation tried to head this off by promising the Obama administration they'd not only disclose all donations, but also get advance approval for any coming from certain foreign governments, which they did, but a few slipped through.

There's 1 involving Algeria donating half a million dollars, although there's no proof that State Department policy was swayed as a result.

More concerning is 1 involving Russia, which does sound bad.

Reports out overnight say the State Department with Clinton at the helm approved the sale of 1 of America's largest uranium mines to Russia.

At the same time, a foundation controlled by the mine's chairman was making donations to the Clinton Foundation.

We are talking about some big money here.

4 separate donations totaling 2.35 million dollars, and these reports say that the donations were not publicly disclosed.

There are so many not good words in that 1 soundbite.

Russia, uranium, controlled, big money, and not disclosed.

It could only be worse if it also contained the words orifice, shart, butt chug, and Cosby.

Now, now, brace yourself, Because this gets pretty dense.

Basically, the Canadian chairman of the mining company that was eventually sold to Russia had also given money to the Clinton Foundation.

But instead of doing it directly, he gave it through this Canadian affiliate, which didn't disclose his name because it didn't have to, because the affiliate wasn't actually included in that agreement the Clinton Foundation signed with the Obama administration.

So, neither the law nor the agreement were technically violated, though the spirit of the agreement definitely was.

So again, this looks bad, especially given that the State Department did sign off on the sale of that uranium mile to Russia.

But, not only was Hillary not involved in that decision, but 8 other federal agencies, plus the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, also had to sign off, which they did.

So this donation was legal, but very annoyingly handled.

And any suggestion of pay-for-play fails to account for the separate actions of 9 unrelated government agencies.

Basically, it's complicated, and like the movie, It's Complicated, It probably would have been best for everyone if it had never happened.

And look, we've spent several frustrating weeks trawling through all the innuendo and exaggeration surrounding her email and foundation scandals.

And the worst thing you can say is, they both look bad, but the harder you look, the less you actually find.

There's not nothing there, but what is there is irritating rather than grossly nefarious.

And this is where it's instructive to compare her to her opponent, Donald Trump, America's wealthiest hemorrhoid.

If you are struggling with the idea of voting for Hillary because of all this, you need to take a long, hard look at Trump.

If you're irritated by her lying, that is understandable.

PolitiFact checked around the same number of statements from both of them over the years, and found around 13 percent of Hillary's statements to be flatly false.

But for Trump, that figure was a whopping 53 percent.

Presumably, it's only that low, because the rest of the time, he was saying things like this.

If Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her.

And the fact it's probably true is what makes it so horrifying.

And if you're thinking, okay, Hillary may not lie as much as Trump, but she needs to be more transparent, that's fair enough.

But, bear in mind, we know almost nothing about Trump's finances, and that is not good.

He's the first major party nominee since 1980 not to release his tax returns, and his justification is pathetic.

I will absolutely give my return, but I'm being audited now for 2 or 3 years, so I can't do it until The audit is finished.

The IRS has explicitly said, you don't need to wait for a completed audit to release them.

You're just saying 2 completely unrelated things.

Or, I'd love to pick you up from the airport, but I can't because a blue whale's tongue weighs as much as an elephant.

Those 2 things have nothing to do with each other.

And on top of Trump's personal tax records, there are unanswered questions about his business dealings.

As many experts have pointed out, his investments, debts, and business ties span the globe and could present unprecedented ethical challenges for a president.

Now, traditionally, presidential candidates in that kind of situation promise to put their financial holdings into a blind trust, where an independent trustee is given control over their investments.

But when Trump was asked if he would do that as well, he seemed not to know what it meant.

Are you planning on putting your assets in a blind trust should you become president?

I have Ivanka and Eric and Don sitting there.

So, you'll put your assets in a blind trust?

don't know if it's a blind trust if Ivanka Dunne and Eric run it, but is that a blind trust?

Almost anything else you could have said would have been closer to a blind trust.

Oh, I'm gonna put my assets in an upside-down doghouse filled with pudding.

No, that's ridiculous, but you're actually closer than you were before.

And even more alarmingly, when George Stephanopoulos talked to Donald Trump Jr., He didn't seem to understand what a blind trust was either

It's not a blind trust if you and your siblings are still running.

gonna be involved in government We wouldn't you know,

You're running the company and he's president So any come foreign,

but he's not making any decisions as it relates to the company.

But a blind trust, it's not a blind trust if it's being run by his children.

It is, because he'll have nothing to do with it, George.

He's still going to know what the businesses are, where they are.

The only reasonable thing to trust you on is which hair products can best make someone look like a 1980s serial killer.

And look, if the financial actions of the Clinton Foundation annoy you, let me introduce you to the Trump Foundation.

And I'm not talking about the estimated 12 pounds of foundation that Trump wears on his face.

I'm talking about his charitable organization.

The Washington Post has been investigating and has found, among other things, that Trump has not personally given it any money since 2008.

Donald Trump is facing questions tonight about his charitable foundation after a report today in the Washington Post.

The foundation spent more than a quarter of a million dollars of donated money to settle lawsuits against Trump businesses.

Yes, Trump reportedly used his foundation's money, which had been donated by people for charitable purposes, as a tool to make some legal disputes go away.

On the spectrum of shittiest things you can do.

That is, right up there with catfishing a baby owl.

He waited all night for you, and he's nocturnal, so that's his day gone.

And Trump also allegedly used Foundation money to purchase ridiculous items for himself.

In another instance, Trump's Foundation paid $10,000 at a charity auction in 2014 for a portrait painted of Trump.

It was the second time Trump used foundation funds for a portrait of him.

Okay, okay, okay, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Just for a start, what is he doing with his face in that photo?

That's waking up in the middle of a colonoscopy.

And also, on top of that, how did that portrait cost $10,000?

It looks like someone Xeroxed a black and white picture of Trump and then painted over it with condiments from Burger King.

Now, what Trump did there would technically be legal as long as the portrait itself was put to some charitable purpose.

Well, Univision found it, and it wasn't exactly in an orphanage.

This is the painting that Donald Trump purchased with funds donated to the charitable foundation that carries his last name.

This morning, Univision got the scoop that the artwork remained hanging inside the restaurant Champion's Bar and Grill, inside the Doral Hotel and Golf Course, a property owned by Donald Trump.

Now, in Trump's defense, that portrait is the perfect pairing for his restaurant's signature dishes, which are apparently, according to Yelp reviewers, watery tomato chunks with no flavor and Kraft beer brands misspelled on the menu.

Trump also wants to use foundation funds to buy a signed Tim Tebow helmet, a steal at $12,000 for something that once contained the head of America's worst quarterback.

He also used funds to make an illegal political donation to support Florida AG Pam Bondi around the time that she was considering investigating his not-a-university university.

So, it seems the Trump Foundation may exist primarily to benefit Trump himself, In which case, they should really change the name to something more appropriate, like the National Association for the Advancement of Donald Trump, or the NAADT for short.

And the thing is, we've barely scratched the surface of his scandals.

There is everything from the ongoing lawsuits against that bullshit university, to the alleged use of undocumented workers when building Trump Tower, to the fact he received an illegal $3.5 million loan from his father in the form of a purchase of chips from 1 of Trump's casinos.

And that loan could not have been shadier if it was given in baggies of cocaine or the bones of endangered species.

Look, the point is, this campaign has been dominated by scandals, but it is dangerous to think that there is an equal number on both sides.

And you can be irritated by some of Hillary's.

-...ethical failings in a politician are like raisins in a cookie.

But most politicians have at least a few raisins.

She arguably has more raisins than average.

There's probably 10 of those little fuckers in there.

But we all need to remember that when it comes to Donald Trump, this is the amount of raisins that he represents.

But unfortunately, this November, you're gonna have to swallow 10, or we're all gonna be eating this shit for years.

See all LastWeekTonight transcripts on Youtube

Scandals: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)