I think that revealing his activities might give those who were stiffed a chance of suing him in the hope of recovering at least some of their losses.
Thanks for that refreshing bit of false equivalency. As an aside, even Bob Woodward, who doesn't appear to be a big Clinton fan, would have accepted the legal consequences of the disclosure if the opportunity presented itself.
Optics is the branch of physics which involves the behavior and properties of light, including its interactions with matter and the construction of instruments that use or detect it. Optics usually describes the behavior of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light. Wikipedia Optics is not the word you're looking for.
From my earlier link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-trouble-to-publish-donald-trumps-tax-return/ Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward, who joined Baquet on the Harvard panel and also said he would risk jail to publish Trump's tax returns
Do you think they made their millions from speaking fees? Do you think organizations pay them $250k just to hear them speak?
So you're implying that Trump tells the truth about his income while the Clintons lie about theirs? Really? New York Times bestselling authors can command speaking fees upwards of $40k. You think maybe people who held world leadership roles might get a bit more? http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorgan/2013/11/14/how-much-can-you-charge-for-speaking/#5759f0806c31
I don't know the details of any supposed Clinton misbehavior but whatever their misbehavior may or may not be it does not excuse illegal activity on anyone else's part. If the Clintons have acted illegally...prosecute them. It has nothing to do with the Times publishing illegally obtained information.