"ABC has plenty of reasons to be freaking out over the George Stephanopoulos scandal � 105?million, to be exact."

"The seven-year deal � which dwarfs the five-year, $50 million contract scored by since-suspended NBC rival Brian Williams � was supposed to keep Stephanopoulos in front of ABC�s cameras through 2021."

"George Stephanopoulos Gave to the Clinton Foundation. So What?"

Yeah, that's what I've been thinking, and I tend to not agree with Jonathan Chait. He says:

Rand Paul... accuses Stephanopoulos of harboring a �conflict of interest.� But donating money to a charitable foundation is not an interest. His money is gone regardless of what happens to Clinton�s presidential campaign.... In the absence of a material conflict, is there some symbolic conflict? It is hard to imagine what.... Stephanopoulos�s defense � that he just wanted to donate to the Foundation�s work on AIDS prevention and deforestation � seems 100 percent persuasive....

The Washington Post�s Erik Wemple does make an argument, but not much of one. �The problem with Stephanopoulos�s donations to the Clinton Foundation is that it gives him a stake � even if it�s a small one � in the operations and success of the charity,� he writes, �Like any donor, Stephanopoulos wants his money put to good use and, all else being equal, wants the foundation to prosper as it invests his money in good works.� But how does this bias Stephanopoulos�s campaign coverage?...

I've always assumed Stephanopoulos is biased toward the Clintons. Why should I care about his charitable contributions? Failed disclosure? Bleh. The Foundation is in all sorts of trouble? George isn't linked to that. The Republicans shouldn't accept him as a debate moderator. That was already true. This new thing? I don't see what it adds to the already-existing disqualification.

Peter Schweitzer � answering the questions about the lack of direct evidence (or a "smoking gun") � makes an analogy to the way insider trading cases are proved.

On Fox News Sunday:

I did not have access to internal memos, but... you see this pattern of benefit.... The analogy I would use [is] like insider trading. I wrote a book a couple years ago on members of Congress who were potentially engaged in insider trading. When you talk to prosecutors, they will tell you, most people that engaged in insider trader don't send an e-mail that says, I've got inside information by this stock. The way that give prosecutors, by looking at the pattern behavior, did somebody who has access to the information conduct a series of well-timed stock trades that warrants further investigation? And that's my contention here, that you see a series of actions that enormously beneficial. In some cases, Hillary Clinton is reversing course on policies that she embraced before for the benefit of Clinton donors and I'm saying, this warrants investigation.... [I]f you look at the case of Governor... McDonnell... in Virginia. You look at Senator Menendez in New Jersey, there's no quid pro quo in those cases. They were simply prosecuted, and I think justifiably so, on the grounds that there was this pattern of gift giving...

On "This Week" (with George Stephanopoulos):
Click for more �