It seemed unanimous for awhile last night. Fox News moderator Chris Wallace was doing a really great job! Asking hard questions about abortion, the Supreme Court, and more. He was reining in the candidates. Following up. Keeping them on topic.

All of that was true, until it wasn't. And of course, it was about the Clinton Foundation.

Secretary Clinton, during your 2009 Senate confirmation hearing, you promised to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest with your dealing with the Clinton Foundation while you were secretary of state, but e-mails show that donors got special access to you. Those seeking grants for Haiti relief were considered separately from non-donors, and some of those donors got contracts, government contracts, taxpayer money.

Can you really say that you kept your pledge to that Senate committee? And why isn't what happened and what went on between you and the Clinton Foundation, why isn't it what Mr. Trump calls pay to play?

Chris, you duplicitous twat. Framing that question as pay-to-play is absurd, particularly since that entire line of questioning has been thoroughly debunked.

Clinton answered appropriately. "Well, everything I did as secretary of state was in furtherance of our country's interests and our values. The State Department has said that. I think that's been proven."

The most annoying part of this particular exchange is the "pay-to-play" framing, since only one candidate indulged in that, and it wasn't Hillary Clinton.

Had Chris Wallace had a moment of clarity, the question would have gone to Donald Trump, who still has not adequately explained his pay-to-play games with his foundation, most recently to Pam Bondi.

By framing the question to Secretary Clinton, Wallace gave Trump an opportunity to call the Clinton Foundation a "criminal enterprise," among other things. It was a stupid moment and one he should be ashamed of, particularly in light of that which he did do well.