In 2018, the "evidence" was that the Clinton Foundation was on the up-and-up, despite the accusations. It was (and still is) nearly perfect score rating on charity evaluation sites, and an investigation during Trump's first term, trying to show that it was a pay-to-play scheme to sell access while Hillary was Secretary of State, had been unable to prove anything amiss. There was in fact pressure that an announcement be made to that effect, to punish the evil, politically-driven hit men who had dared besmirch Ms. Clinton. No one has said much about it since.
But this may be because there is not much need to anymore. Since 2001, the Foundation has transformed philanthropy through programs that develop leaders and accelerate solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges. Sounds like a description on your resume of your last job. Develop leaders. Accelerate solutions. The world's most pressing challenges. Yet that is not the problem. In its heyday up until 2016, while Clinton was SecState, the fund took in $250,000,000 per year in donations. The next year, however, contributions fell off 90%, to $20M/year. I guess those donors were no longer interested in developing leaders and accelerating solutions for some unknown reason. Over half of the private interests Hillary met with while Secretary were foundation donors.
She has a long history of this, getting the FBI files of her political enemies while in the White House, ostensibly to arrange seating at important dinners, for example. She and Web Hubbell refusing to let the FBI into Vince Foster's office after he turned up dead*. Gaming the primary system to take the nomination away from Bernie Sanders, having an insecure email account to make wedding plans and yoga scheduling. And whenever she had to testify, her supporters loved it, not because she refuted the charges or successfully explained her actions, but because she artfully dodged the questions. Aha! She led them on a merry chase, she did, but they couldn't touch her! As if powerful people not answering questions were a good thing. "I'm sorry, I don't recall," repeated a hundred times. "Wipe, like with a cloth?"
We have seldom had people as good as the Clintons at gaming the system. Obama might have been as good, but he just wasn't on the scene long enough to rack up the career numbers.
Now Trump is doing the same thing, though nowhere near as successfully. Partly that's because he's outnumbered in Washington, but also because his skill was in gaming business transactions, not reputational ones. Also, he ended up on the pro-life side of things, perhaps by default. I don't find evidence he cared much about the issue 20 years ago, and it does not figure prominently for him now except indirectly, because of SCOTUS nominees. But that remains the wine and wafer of Democratic women, and they will forgive any Kennedy, Dodd, Clinton, Sanders, or Edwards any behavior against women up to and including negligent homicide. So someone like Trump, who is boorish, unempathic, and unstylish to boot will just grate on them the wrong way. His gaming the legal system - and he does - arouses fury and amazement.
I do a mild version of it myself, not in excusing bad behavior if there is no "proof" even when there is, but in just forgetting about it when it's someone I perceive as being on my side of a cultural or political divide. That's not dramatic, but it's not a heckuva lot better. I guess that is also gaming the system, putting my thumb on one side of the balance pan. I don't visibly shrug, for that would give away my hypocrisy, but inside I shrug, forever noting that the other guys are worse.
And I have proof. Proof, I say.
*Just in case you forgot how long the FBI has been rolling over for Democratic presidents.