There are three concepts / topics to understand, in order to judge what occurred between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's actions as Secretary of State:
18 U.S. Code § 201 -- This establishes what constitutes bribery. There are two key phrases used, "corruptly" and "official act", in relation to this topic. In order to have a finding of bribery, one must establish that two persons -- the donor and the receiver -- acted together, or "corruptly". Part of this arrangement must also incorporate an "official act", that is to say, that the receiver has the capacity to effect change in pending matters or is able to bring forth matters to be acted upon.
Quid Pro Quo -- Latin, meaning something for something. In general, this means that a transaction took place. Acting "corruptly", under 18 U.S.Code § 201, invokes a necessity of proof of a transaction.
McDonnell vs. US -- In a unanimous decision this past term, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Bob McDowell who had been convicted of receiving money for favors. In their ruling, they noted that prosecution required distinct quid pro quo.
In essence, look no further than McDonnell vs. US, to find that Hillary and the Clinton Foundation did nothing wrong. The news media purports impropriety from a link between donations and setting up of meetings with donors, or handing off a contact to someone else in the government. This is precisely the sort of stuff that was outlined as being acceptable by SCOTUS.
Rather, SCOTUS affirmed (through criticism) the requirement that quid pro quo involving an official act shall clearly be established:
"Section 201 prohibits quid pro quo corruption -- the exchange of a thing of value for an “official act.” In the Government’s view, nearly anything a public official accepts -- from a campaign contribution to lunch -- counts as a quid; and nearly anything a public official does -- from arranging a meeting to inviting a guest to an event -- counts as a quo."Note that no one in the press has identified a quid pro quo relationship between the Foundation donations and any of the favors allegedly handed out by the SOS. No one has said, "I want this favor in exchange for this donation". Without proof of quid pro quo or that the SOS committed an official act in exchange, this case does not even rise to what occurred in McDonnell's situation.
So what do we really have here? Innuendo. Bad optics. Politics.
Funny thing, though, because every politician engages in the aforementioned activity. They regularly meet with lobbyists who pay money into their SuperPACs or donate directly to their campaigns. They regularly host campaign dinners and speak with influential donors who wish to have their voices heard on a variety of self-serving issues.
In other words, friends, there's nothing there.