I agree with the overall picture you present, but this statement is provably false: "spent 93% of its funds on her family". Probably best to cut it out.

As a socialist, I had a lot of Democratic friends when I lived in the US. When Hillary's foundation came up, and I claimed like you it was "pay for access", they denied it.

Then she lost the election, and overnight, over 90% of the contributions to her foundation. And yet people insisted it was a coincidence, or she'd been blacklisted. Grow up, guys - no one was going to bribe a loser anymore.