The funny thing about Presidential power is that much of its power is based on precedent and not actual law. The President for example can choose to hire or fire any of his cabinet members. But, he has to have Congressional consent to actually instal his cabinet members. The President has final authority on the military disposition of Federal forces. But his authority to act without Congressional imprimatur or authority is limited drastically since the Gulf of Tonkin. His use of Executive Orders applies only to the Executive Department meaning the scope of authority is not only non binding to most of the United States government but also can be absolved by direct act of either the Judicial or Legislative branches and ends at the time of the President's leave of office.
What Presidents do have is soft power for the most part, not hard power. Reality is that he has little direct and for that matter directable power. For example, President Obama and the executive order to implement the Dream Act which was ultimately declared illegal by the Judicial branch. Harsh reality is that a President can act unilaterally on policy scopes of action, but it is ultimately ephemeral in nature due to loss of political power and constraints applied by the other branches of government.
The concern of lack of statesman concern for actions in office is legitimate. We have had several instances of elected officials governing in a manner that reveals quid pro quo basis. Examples include governors like Heuy Long or president's like FDR. Do existing relationships with political actors and groups color what a President does? Likely the answer is yes. I'd go so far to say that it has probably been a factor since Washington was in office and set the precedent that the Chief Executive does not preside over the Senate while in session- which he incidentally left with the comment that he would not bestow the dignity of the office upon a rabble of horse traders.
Clinton's entanglement and its scope has been brought to light by the DNC leaks, the Guciffer2 leaks, and Wikileaks. In plain text anyone can directly read for themselves the facts of her public acts. It honestly is a pay for play situation. If you are wondering if Clinton is going to continue acting on a pay for play basis, her confirmed and now documented history predicts that she will.
But, all is not clear sailing for Trump either. When you admit on a debate stage that you have indeed directly participated in pay for play on a debate stage, it would be very hard to deny that you haven't done exactly what Clinton has been doing. The only difference between them is that Clinton was taking money for access and Trump was paying for access. I'm not sure which is worse.
Both of them have world wide reach. Both of them have pre existing entanglements. The Clinton NGO is massively suspect in terms of its functions and results. Trump's world wide real estate and intellectual properties being liscensed and monetized is equally suspect.
The valid concern is whether either can rise to statesmanship in the Office of the President of the United States. Fundamentally, Trump has the edge only because he has been on the outside of political power and has been paying for access as a cost of doing business. And he has frankly and publicly admitted to doing so. Clinton however continues to deny being a participant despite the now publicly available facts to the contrary.
Maybe a better concern would be to consider who is or is not a liar?
