I don't think the prevalence of "actual corruption" justifies it. Just to be clear though, I think HRCs opponents would in all likelihood behave in similar man

I don't think the prevalence of "actual corruption" justifies it. Just to be clear though, I think HRCs opponents would in all likelihood behave in similar manner. >All that is to say that consequential political appointments can be had through patronage. Unless you can somehow show that this appointment was directly requested by Rajiv, again my response is that he probably didn't want this particular position, but it's the one that was left after HRC exhausted the choice positions. I don't think what Rajiv wanted is really relevant here, he supported Hillary and was rewarded for it in a very inappropriate manner, that's corruption. I wouldn't have any complaints if the post Rajiv was handed was one he was qualified for, but that obviously isn't the case here. Nothing wrong with handing out consequential positions to qualified people. >Again, I don't think the action was responsible but I can't see how it was out of line with the dysfunctional status quo. It's not, just as the cop trying to extort me for a bribe in Thailand isn't. Doesn't make it any less corrupt though.