Clinton charity quid pro quo

Watching the news it seems like no one understands what a quid pro quo is. Apparently it’s supposed to be a scandal only if the Clinton’s personally profited from the charity and the lack of evidence presented for that means there was no quid pro quo. This despite the overwhelming evidence provided by the AP that half of the meetings Hillary had with private individuals were preceded by contributions to her charity, in other words, these people donated to the charity and they got access to the Secretary of State. That’s the quid pro quo right there. The Clinton defense is that only a small percentage of her official meetings fit that category but the AP says that was not the case, the large number of meetings with other non-donors were for official government business, and Hillary refuses to release her calendar to back up her claims anyway. Another Clinton defense is that the charity was performing invaluable services around the globe, as if no other charities did such. The donors to the charity clearly were granted meetings in exchange for their contributions and could have spent their money elsewhere for causes just as well deserving if their intention and the result was not access to a government official. On top of all that Hillary promised to remain separated from the charity while in office and the evidence shows that was not the case. Her first reformation of that plan as president was to no longer accept foreign donations if she became president, as if such influence peddling isn’t wrong domestically, and then the new promise to disperse the charity, removing Bill from it’s board, but leaving her daughter on it.

I don’t see selling the office of Secretary of State for any purpose to be acceptable whether or not Hillary Clinton profited personally from it or not. The burden of proof is now on her to show that these donations were unrelated to the access provided and I haven’t seen even an attempt to do that, not surprising at all since such coincidences never occur. The government of the United States should not be for sale, not even to the very best of causes.

First, supply some evidence about the suspicious activities. You know–links to reputable sources.


Here is one of the AP stories. The AP is the world’s oldest and largest newsgathering organization. Numerous political journalists currently employed by major media outlets are AP veterans.

I guess that explains why other places like The New York Times also got sloppy with their reportage of the Clintons.

Only if the only reason they got access was because of their donations. From your link, some Estee Lauder reps got a meeting regarding their charitable work in ending foreign gender-based violence. But a major company running an international charity may be something Clinton, as Sec of State, could be interested in regardless.

I suspect a lot of similar bias here – people or organizations prone to make major donations to an international charity run by a former president are the same sorts of organizations likely to be engaged in activities of interest to the diplomatic arm of the government.

That said, I don’t really give a shit who Clinton had coffee with or why. Unless she was greenlighting action on their behalf it doesn’t mean much to me at all. Oh, hey, big powerful people get to talk to other powerful people. Color me shocked.

My understanding is that the AP has been widely criticized for the tweet that “led” that story as a misrepresentation of the actual facts of the case. My internet access sucks right now. I will post cites as soon as I can.

I’d like to see tweets be universally ignored as a communication medium. 140 characters isn’t enough to be either accurate or unbiased. There is a universal consensus among journalists that the AP blew the Clinton story big time. Just like Benghazi, just like the emails, there is no scandal there. Republicans may want to make it seem that way just by sheer repetition, but it doesn’t wash.

That story is incorrect. There is no evidence that Hillary had many more meetings with private individuals. She will not release her calendar to prove this claim, so that story is sloppy in presenting unsubstantiated claims from the Clinton campaign as facts.

If you don’t care that’s fine. But it is not the job of Secretary of State to serve her personal charitable interests. I don’t accept that so many of the private individuals who an official of the United States should be meeting with coincidentally made donations to her personal charity. The burden of proof is on her to show that she was not using her position to further her private interests.

I provided a link that was not 140 characters. I am not presenting any AP tweets as evidence. The AP conducted a methodical study based on the information available. No one has shown that the data is incorrect. The fact that the media is pile of imbeciles who are not presenting the story is not an excuse for her. No evidence has been provided to deny that the large number of private individuals who were granted access to Clinton after making donations to the charity with her name on it. That is the scandal, in and of itself.

Granting a meeting is not improper. You need to show that something other than Hillary’s time was granted in exchange for cash. Why is nobody upset that donors to the George HW Bush library were granted access to W in exchange for contributions?

You have to prove either:

She wouldn’t have met with them otherwise. Which is impossible to prove.


Find an email that says “If he gives $ I’ll meet him.”

Of course, that is not the standard of proof required to call something a scandal these days. For that, all you need is to hold a blank piece of paper up and say “this proves XYZ.”

Presume that she is 100% not guilty. How would she meet your “burden of proof”?

Jesus Christ. The old favorite, prove a negative. How about some Trumpian method like a photoshopped little note in the memo line on the check that says


I don’t have to show that Hillary profited from these meetings. It doesn’t matter what cause these individuals wanted to talk to her about. I don’t have to prove that the donations were the basis for the meetings. The high percentage of meetings with private individuals who donated to her charity places the burden on her to prove that these were necessary meetings that were part of her job as Secretary of State and her decision to meet these people was not influenced by their donations to the charity with her name on it. She has to show that these face to face meetings were the only way to serve legitimate US interests. So far she has offered excuses through her surrogates that do not address the obvious conflict of interest, it doesn’t matter what causes these people promoted, it doesn’t matter whether she received material rewards, and it doesn’t matter if she claims these were a tiny percentage of her meetings when she refuses to provide the evidence to support that claim.

The high percentages were due to AP’s cherry-picking and incomplete information. They don’t know how many meetings were on her calendar so without the ability to accurately know that, their calculation is worthless. Meeting with people is not in and of itself a quid pro quo. She does not have to show that the meetings promoted US interests. Suppose a donor gets a meeting to discuss the earthquake relief efforts in Haiti. In the US interest? Not really, but it is in humanitarian interest. We can’t be so blind as to pretend that American lives and American suffering were the only things that mattered, if we were, we’d vote for Trump. Finally, it isn’t her responsibility to prove her innocence, it’s the responsibility of the accusers to prove her guilt, which they have failed miserably to do.

The cherry picking is an unsubstantiated claim from her surrogates. The AP doesn’t have access to her calendar because she won’t release it. I’ll be surprised if she ever does without a subpoena. It would be in the US interest for the Secretary of State to meet with someone to discuss earthquake relief in Haiti. All she has to do is release her calendar so we can see that she met with any private individuals interested in discussing that cause instead of just the one who gave money to her charity.

BTW: I started this thread not so much as a criticism of Hillary but of the media which has reported this story based on the Clinton campaign response which does not address the issue of quid pro quo based on meetings in exchange for donations, or on the other side nutbag right-wing conspiracy theories. The AP provided the evidence, there’s been no follow up that I’ve seen except to rehash the same set of irrelevant and unproven arguments.


So who told you it was not released? It was demanded **already **by the AP and forced the State department to release it. What the Washington Post reported and cited in the link I made (and the link made early was in reality not seen properly by you) was linked in the article I cited, it was not only referring to the tweet, but also to the complete articles of the AP:

Nope, you are the one relying on a report from the AP that was based on half the data and cherry picked. And what I cited did not rely only on what the Clinton campaign reported, get it right.

The story was based on the portion of the calendar released. Since she hasn’t released the rest of it what is the cherry picking complaint based on? The AP story used the information she reported. What was said in tweets or by Trump does not negate the facts. The story was not all wrong, according to information provided by Hillary half or more of her meetings with private individuals were with donors to her charity. Come up with some better excuse.

Depends on whether you want people to take you seriously or not. That’s pretty much the definition of the quid pro quo you’re accusing her of. If you can’t meet the definition, you have no reasonable accusation.

Why would they need to be the “only way”? You need to show evidence that they were an improper way for her to act. She could have talked over the phone or via smoke signals or through an aide or ignored them entirely but that doesn’t make meeting with them improper or evidence of quid pro quo.