Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign is dogged by questions about disclosure. Some are fair, others aren't. But added together, they present a ripe target.

Consider:

1. The Clintons can do very little to speed along the process by which presidential documents are approved for release. But the campaign took a while to explain the process fully for reporters -- a process that is, in the end, fairly exculpatory -- and thus generated its own controversy.

2. The donors to the library are another matter entirely. The library's donation solicitors apparently promised their donors that the contributions would remain private.

3. But a list of those donors was apparently sold to a company owned by a major donor.

4. Donations continued to flow in last year, meaning that, as Clinton was preparing for a presidential run, potential donors had a private avenue to try and curry favor with the Clinton world.

5. There's no law requiring the Clinton Library to release its donors and no precedent for doing so.

6. But there's no rule, process or procedure that would _stop_ the Clinton Library from releasing its donors.

7. So -- even though there's probably nothing there, there -- the existence of a secret donor list under the Clinton's control is a real hook for her opponents to hang their charges of misdirection or mischeviousness around.