Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a press conference at the United Nations in New York in this March 10, 2015 file photo. Controversy over emails could overshadow the launch of Hillary Clinton's expected presidential campaign after an influential Republican on Wednesday raised the prospect of congressional hearings into her use of personal email for work when she was America's top diplomat. REUTERS/Mike Segar/Files (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS HEADSHOT) Hillary Clinton speaks during a news conference in March at the United Nations in New York. (Mike Segar/Reuters)

Nearly every day we learn new stomach-turning details about the Clintons’ greed, lack of transparency and ethical shortcomings. The Post reports:

The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups. The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.

The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.

More foreign money, more undisclosed sources of income, more donors who would have reason to cultivate a relationship with a likely presidential candidate. (“The foundation, along with the Clintons’ paid speaking careers, have provided additional avenues for foreign governments and other interests to gain entrée to one of America’s most prominent political families.”)

Meanwhile, Clinton crony and Libya memo-writer Sidney Blumenthal says he will cooperate with the House Select Committee, which he is compelled to do in any event. So what should he be asked? Here is a start:

Were you employed by the foundation when you sent memos regarding Libya to Hillary Clinton?

How much were you paid, and what services were being performed for that salary?

Did you have business interests in Libya that would have benefited from your access to the secretary of state? Did any of those business interests require action from the State Department? Were you compensated for the memos you wrote to Clinton?

Did you reveal your business interests to Clinton when you sent the memos? If you did not, why didn’t you?

Which e-mail accounts did you use to correspond with Clinton? Did those e-mails include discussion of Libya? About the foundation? Can you provide all of these and the responses to the committee?

Why was Clinton not permitted to hire you to work in the State Department?

What special expertise did you have on Libya? Your lawyer says the information on Libya came from trusted sources. What were those?

Where did you get the idea the Benghazi attack was motivated by an anti-Muslim video? When did you come to understand that was wrong? Did you ever discuss this with Clinton and/or advise her that your assertions had been wrong?

Did she discuss with you the PR strategy for responding to the Benghazi attacks? Please tell us what you recommended.

Were there other policy issues you discussed with Clinton and/or were the subject of memos? Did those involve any of your business interests? Did you disclose this?

Would you want to work for Clinton if she is elected? Would there be issues on which you would need to recuse yourself?

The Blumenthal connection reminds us of one of the most disturbing parts of the nonstop Clinton scandals: While she destroyed 30,000 e-mails presumably so as to keep them from the hands of congressional investigators and the media, there may be any number of foreign governments, firms and individuals who have those. Isn’t that a major risk for the Clintons?

Indeed, if Hillary Clinton were to wind up in the White House, we could never be certain she was acting solely in the best interests of the country. On any number of topics, she could be returning favors or acting to avoid a messy revelation. This is the ultimate conflict of interest (regardless of whether she denies that getting millions from entities having business with the government during her run-up to the White House is a problem), and a serious reason to question why the Democrats are putting up with this.