On the candidates

•With the polls tightening … it was perhaps inevitable that Hillary Clinton would strike out at Donald Trump by raising his alleged connection with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. But her latest attack has little basis in fact. …

There is no evidence of a conspiracy. According to an article that appeared in The New York Times … FBI agents looked at the logs and didn’t see anything they could latch on to … .

Clinton is straining to link Trump to Putin when no solid link has been found after months of digging by reporters and federal agents.

Perhaps it’s time for her to desist. Unsubstantiated accusations detract from Clinton’s credibility and demonstrate bad judgment.

From a column by Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky, published in the Review-Journal last week.

•The media should talk more about the Clintons’ foundation. It’s raised billions but gives little to outside charities — a measly 6 percent of their assets, according to the foundation’s last filing. It’s apparently a “pay to play” operation; donors get meetings with Clinton — Clinton family cronies get well-paid jobs. …

Clinton promises more than $1 trillion in new “investments,” free day care, maternity leave, an expansion of Obamacare, more funding for veterans, new solar subsidies, new bridges and tunnels and “college, tuition free!” Then she says, “We’re not only going to make all these investments, we’re going to pay for every single one of them!” But that’s absurd.

Sometimes she says money will come from new “taxes on the rich,” but America’s rich aren’t rich enough to fund her grand schemes. Even if they were, they’d move out of the country or use tricks to evade her high taxes. Even The New York Times admits that Clinton’s tax plan adds “so many new layers of complexity” that it would “be a huge boon for tax lawyers.”

From a column by John Stossel of Creators Syndicate, published in the Oct. 12 Review-Journal

•Mr. Trump … brings a corporate sensibility and a steadfast determination to an ossified Beltway culture. He advocates for lower taxes and a simplified tax code, in contrast to his opponent’s plan to extract another $1 trillion from the private economy in order to enlarge the bureaucracy. Mr. Trump understands and appreciates the conditions that lead to prosperity and job creation and would be a friend to small business and entrepreneurship. Mrs. Clinton has spent most of her adult life on the public payroll.

Of particular importance is the U.S. Supreme Court. The next president may be charged with filling multiple vacancies, shaping the court’s direction for a generation. Mr. Trump prefers nominees who recognize the Constitution’s checks on federal authority as a bulwark against tyranny. Mrs. Clinton would be a disaster in this regard.

Protections enshrined in no fewer than five amendments in the Bill of Rights could be eliminated or diminished under a progressive high court. …

Mr. Trump represents neither the danger his critics claim nor the magic elixir many of his supporters crave. But he promises to be a source of disruption and discomfort to the privileged, back-scratching political elites for whom the nation’s strength and solvency have become subservient to power’s pursuit and preservation.

Donald Trump for president.

From the Review-Journal’s Oct. 23 endorsement of Donald Trump