# Clinton charity quid pro quo **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 29, 2016, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369 "2016-08-29T04:03:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/81 "2016-08-29T17:54:35Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > [A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest) > > Do you understand that the interests of the Clinton Foundation are not the same as the interests of the United States? They may legitimately overlap but Hillary’s personal interests are not per se the the interests of the United States just because she is Secretary of State. Those donations had already served her personal interests before the meetings were granted or held, this places the onus on her to ensure that those meeting do not even appear to be in exchange for those donations otherwise she makes the United States foreign policy appear to be for sale. The part of your general description of a conflict of interest involves the **possible corruption** of a motivation. I can’t see anything so far that makes me think that there’s anything possibly corrupting here. Your assertion that a meeting is the corruption is frankly ridiculous – you want me to believe that a discussion, leading to no apparent action, is corruption of motivations? And that what seem to be chit-chats among two people lead to a perception that US foreign policy is “for sale?” Are you fucking kidding me? Sure, maaaybe a meeting is for sale, but US foreign policy? Unless you have more to add, or more comes out from this story, I think this is tinfoil hat time. > [@](#): > > If it means using my tax dollars to profit anyone then I do understand. What on earth do you consider public financing to be? I’m right. You have no idea of what public financing is. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/82 "2016-08-29T17:57:15Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > [Shitty](http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting) reporting by the AP. > > In my view, this is a problem (and still a relatively minor one) if and when there is evidence that she took meetings that she wouldn’t otherwise have taken. At the barest minimum, this means showing a connection between the donation and the meeting–like showing that if you donate, you’re more likely to get a meeting. Right now, there’s not even enough data to show that. So it’s a big nothingburger. > > This story is one that only resonates among people who are already quite anti-Clinton. Fifty percent (give or take) of people (that donated big assed amounts of money IMO) got a meeting? IMO at the very least that is enough to raise eyebrows. What are the chances that random foreign dude/dudete happened to donate to the Clinton Foundation? It is not like the Clinton Foundation is doing stuff nobody else touches with a 10 foot pole. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/83 "2016-08-29T17:58:17Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Speaking of baseless arguments, when are you going to stop bandying about an AP report that reputable news outlets are denouncing? Denunciations are not facts. The numbers still stand as reported and have not been refuted. More than half the meetings with private individuals that can be factually established were with donors to the Clinton Foundation. If you have evidence that is not the case then present it, and I will retract that statement. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/84 "2016-08-29T18:07:57Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Well, IMO if it was/is improper to do it as President, it sure as fuck was/is improper to do it as Secretary of State. Hell, one could argue that foreign donations linked to Secretrary of State rather than president might even be the worse of the two scenarios practically speaking. Aren’t foreign donations to campaign funds illegal? If so, and now showing she mixes what happens with the Foundation with her role as SoS, would anyone be surprised if those money were being channeled from the Foundation to her campaign fund? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/85 "2016-08-29T18:11:12Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Aren’t foreign donations to campaign funds illegal? > If so, and now showing she mixes what happens with the Foundation with her role as SoS, would anyone be surprised if those money were being channeled from the Foundation to her campaign fund? Yes, AFAIK. And that is (as you probably know) my point. She/they reached a whole nuther level of TriPolar’s hell noes. PS. The money doesn’t even need to be channeled. At all. If FOREIGN contributions are hella illegal…then FOREIGN influence are ALSO hella conflict of interest/wrong. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/86 "2016-08-29T18:14:08Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Aren’t foreign donations to campaign funds illegal? > If so, and now showing she mixes what happens with the Foundation with her role as SoS, would anyone be surprised if those money were being channeled from the Foundation to her campaign fund? It would indeed be surprising. Were it actually true and you provided evidence of same. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/87 "2016-08-29T18:14:17Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > No, you are claiming by way of “implication” that the WP has the whole list (I am guessing you mean meeting calendar or some such as I am). > > Well, lets hear it. > > AP (as far as I can tell from random news) is that they have X amount of calendar/meeting data and here are their results. That is AP’s story. Let me repeat that. That is AP’s story. > > You claim the WP has more. > > Lets hear it. > > This is absurd. We (you/the WP/ Hillary) have evidence that it isn’t as bad as it seems. But we haven’t/can’t release it yet! > > Good grief. Actually I can ask the same from the AP, there is no direct link to the list they used. good grief. :rolleyes: Unless the AP makes the point that the WP does not have the full list I have to go with logic. The AP would had a beef if they had not been confronted with what they missed and they did agree that they missed items in their report, but they stand by the original report even if the WP is correct, once again that is because they also did not claim that what Clinton did was anything illegal or improper. Only that it is kinda gross, but as others pointed out that is what is going all for everyone, and Trump also gave money to the foundation. > [@billfish678](#): > > PS. If my responses to your post are NOTthe point you are making…well, quit making your point badly, restate the point, or at least quit gripping about my posts and I’ll STFU about your responses to my posts as well. And I did indeed restated the point, it is clear that you do not want to deal with it so the red herrings you have will do. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/88 "2016-08-29T18:15:59Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Denunciations are not facts. The numbers still stand as reported and have not been refuted. More than half the meetings with private individuals that can be factually established were with donors to the Clinton Foundation. If you have evidence that is not the case then present it, and I will retract that statement. Neither Clinton nor her campaign is denying the meetings took place. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/89 "2016-08-29T18:18:20Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Fifty percent (give or take) of people (that donated big assed amounts of money IMO) got a meeting? > > IMO at the very least that is enough to raise eyebrows. I agree. But your statement is based on a misinterpretation of the AP article, which itself got the facts wrong. It is not true that 50% of big Clinton Foundation donors met with Secretary Clinton, nor is it true that 50% of her meetings were with Clinton donors. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/90 "2016-08-29T18:18:56Z")
I love it when people put conditions on elected officials _and their spouses_ which they would find unconstitutional if applying the same conditions towards private jobs. " Hillary’s husband has left his job! She must now retire because he was elected to the Presidency! She doesn’t need a career of her own" ( this has nothing to do with the foundation but it seems where the conversation is going) ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/91 "2016-08-29T18:21:50Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I agree. But your statement is based on a misinterpretation of the AP article, which itself got the facts wrong. It is not true that 50% of big Clinton Foundation donors met with Secretary Clinton, nor is it true that 50% of her meetings were with Clinton donors. Okay. In your own words…what ARE the stats? PS. Words and details matter. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/92 "2016-08-29T18:27:21Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Okay. > > In your own words…what ARE the stats? > > PS. Words and details matter. What an odd post. What do you mean by “in your own words”? It’s not enough for me to cite to you the article you’re supposedly relying on, or to post a link to the article debunking it? I need to paraphrase them for you? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/93 "2016-08-29T18:30:32Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > What an odd post. What do you mean by “in your own words”? It’s not enough for me to cite to you the article you’re supposedly relying on, or to post a link to the article debunking it? I need to paraphrase them for you? Yep. Paraphrase it for me. You are the one making an arguement about what 50 percent means and implies. I wanna hear your arguement. I’ve read the news. MY interpretation is different than yours obviously. Lets see where your/mine problem is. Otherwise, wouldn’t the whole SDMB just be a war of links? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/94 "2016-08-29T18:32:00Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Denunciations are not facts. The numbers still stand as reported and have not been refuted. More than half the meetings with private individuals that can be factually established were with donors to the Clinton Foundation. If you have evidence that is not the case then present it, and I will retract that statement. [The numbers were refuted in Post #4.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19589261&postcount=4) Hillary’s meetings with private individuals represent less than 5% of her time as SoS. You want us to believe that the mere fact that she took meetings with wealthy philanthropists is a scandal, then the onus is on you to show that this is something more than recreational outrage. Speaking of onus - the onus is on you to explain why the Clinton Foundation is a problem for you but the Donald J. Trump Foundation is not. Donald’s Foundation straight up bilks charities for money: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/06/five-questions-we-still-cant-answer-about-donald-trumps-charity-donations/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/06/five-questions-we-still-cant-answer-about-donald-trumps-charity-donations/) > [@WAPO article about Trump's phony charity acts](#): > > For weeks now, The Washington Post has been trying to prove Donald Trump right about something important. > > So far, we’ve failed. > > The Post has been trying to confirm a claim that Trump and his campaign staff have made repeatedly: that the mogul has given millions of dollars of his own money to charities. > > First, The Post looked in public records. > > The proof wasn’t there. At least the Clinton Foundation is actually helping people by providing AIDS medicine and other things. All of Donald’s kids have dodgy Foundations too. Eric claims that his dad donates money to his (Eric’s) Foundation, but they both refuse to back it up. At it’s not just the Clinton Foundation. The Bushes have the Carlyle Group, that was connected to the Bin Laden family prior to 9/11. As I said elsewhere recently - think about that and then think about the Bush admin helping the Saudis to flee the US on 9/14. I know - you say you hate all Foundations. The onus is on you to explain why the Clinton Foundation gets your ire but the Trump Foundation doesn’t. Finally - the title of this thread is “Clinton Charity quid pro quo”. And yet - you have not supplied any evidence of a quid pro quo. Yes, some of her donors got meetings. Who cares? That’s called “networking”. People are doing it all around the world just as we speak. If you want to allege that there was something more than run of the mill networking going on - the onus is on you to poly up the cites. So - cite that Hillary Clinton did anything more than have tea and say, “thanks for the donation!”. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/95 "2016-08-29T18:35:29Z")
There’s no interpretation at work here. Your statement was very clear, and so was the AP’s. Your statement was “Fifty percent (give or take) of people (that donated big assed amounts of money IMO) got a meeting.” The AP’s statement was “More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation.” But, in fact, we do not know either the overall number of big Clinton Foundation donors nor the overall number of meetings. And we have every reason to suspect that both numbers are quite a bit larger than 85 and 154, respectively. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/96 "2016-08-29T18:46:55Z")
Everyone from the president on down has meetings with donors and non-donors alike. It is the rare politician who does not feel obligated to meet with a generous donor, including such nasty characters as NRA officials and oil company executives. To single out Clinton for this is hubris in the extreme. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/97 "2016-08-29T18:49:17Z")
They’re not even donors to her! They were giving money to fight HIV, and the like. We should be so blessed that politicians grant access to people who give millions to fight diseases. I think it would still be an issue, but they haven’t even established that _that_ happened yet. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/98 "2016-08-29T18:50:10Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But, in fact, we do not know either the overall number of big Clinton Foundation donors nor the overall number of meetings. And we have every reason to suspect that both numbers are quite a bit larger than 85 and 154, respectively. And neither one of those matter IMO. You aren’t disputing the facts (AFAIKT) of the AP report. You are disputing the interpretation of said facts. There is a difference. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/99 "2016-08-29T18:50:20Z")
It’s the rare businessman who refuses to meet with top clients. It’s the rare charity organizer who refuses to meet with top donors. We can do this all day! ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/100 "2016-08-29T18:51:42Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > And neither one of those matter IMO. > > You aren’t disputing the facts (AFAIKT) of the AP report. > > You are disputing the interpretation of said facts. > > There is a difference. Uh, no. Again, your claim doesn’t even appear in the AP report. And the AP report’s claim is incorrect, because the denominator is not 154. I don’t understand what you’re missing here. There is no interpretation happening. This is just arithmetic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369.md?page=6)