# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![DonLogan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@DonLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DonLogan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/121 "2016-08-29T20:00:46Z")
Mayor of Poundtown. ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/122 "2016-08-29T20:04:40Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Well, Mr. Mayor, in addition to the fact that Secretary of State is a bit different from your job, it seems that you really are struggling with this “50 percent” that you keep misrepresenting. But you’re misrepresenting it. She did not meet with 50% of the folks who donated. No one but you has suggested this. Good God. Let me paraphrase the AP. About 50 percent of the people she meet with “privately” (as opposed to gubment business) “happened” to be donors. I did not and have not (IMO) implied your second to last sentence. If I have, well now you now know otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/123 "2016-08-29T20:09:25Z")
This entire exchange has been about the fact that you said that explicitly. IMO. “Words and details matter.” ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/124 "2016-08-29T20:11:18Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Good God. Let me paraphrase the AP. > > About 50 percent of the people she meet with “privately” (as opposed to gubment business) “happened” to be donors. > > I did not and have not (IMO) implied your second to last sentence. > > If I have, well now you now know otherwise. So… 19 minutes later and the emergency is resolved? Good job! ---
**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, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/125 "2016-08-29T20:18:33Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > So… 19 minutes later and the emergency is resolved? > > Good job! No. Getting ready to epoxy paint a concrete floor if you must know. I sincerely hope you have as much trouble as I have had with this project. And I hope when you do and you put the other two coats on it…and someone is bitching about you doing it wrong and taking too long that you too find out you fucked the prep up and that 300 dollar shit peels like a Singapore prostitute. ---
**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, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/126 "2016-08-29T20:23:41Z")
I, uhm. OK. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/127 "2016-08-29T20:26:19Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > And I hope when you do and you put the other two coats on it…and someone is bitching about you doing it wrong and taking too long that you too find out you fucked the prep up and that 300 dollar shit peels like a Singapore prostitute. Gosh, based on your posts in this thread, I thought you were an expert on cover ups. ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/128 "2016-08-29T20:30:21Z")
Having not yet been worthy of the sublime joys of Singaporean Pleasure Women, I must ask… is “peeling” a good or a bad thing? ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/129 "2016-08-29T20:37:54Z")
So the murder/suicide thing is NOT related to the mayor gig then? ---
**Author:** ![DonLogan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@DonLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DonLogan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/130 "2016-08-29T20:52:47Z")
Seems like a golden opportunity to bring caning into this. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/131 "2016-08-29T21:11:10Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > About 50 percent of the people she meet with “privately” (as opposed to gubment business) “happened” to be donors. Sooo… let’s look at this way, say the Secretary of State has 6000 meetings involving government officials. And then she has 154 meetings aside from government officials. Of those 154 meetings, 84 are people who donated to the Clinton Foundation. Just on the basis of numbers, that’s a paltry amount of meetings. Secondly, as pointed out, folks that donate to big charities aren’t Joe Shmoe, they tend to be movers and shakers in the field. As the Vox article points out, one of those was the head of an HIV NGO - they donated to the Clinton Foundation to help with HIV issues. They met with Secretary Clinton before she was discussing an HIV initiative. How is such a meeting an improper quid pro quo? ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/132 "2016-08-29T21:15:13Z")
Yeah, but… what about those Singapore whores and their “peeling”? Don’t they get any help from the Clinton Foundation? Why does HRC not care about peeling hookers, or **Billfish’s** floor? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/133 "2016-08-29T21:31:09Z")
> [@DonLogan](#): > > 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 > > “DEFINITELY NOT FOR A MEETING” Sweet! Then we could say, “The burden of proof is now on you to prove this photo isn’t real!” No one would ever bear any responsibility again! ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/134 "2016-08-29T23:43:29Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Well, besides the 70 percent or so of people that are ON her side that think she is “untrustworthy”. > > So, are those people who support her crazy or has she done SOMETHING to earn that? You are reasoning defectively. The number of people who think she’s nebulously “untrustworthy” has nothing whatsoever to do with how untrustworthy she is. An opinion moderately informed people hold after decades of lying, high-profile hatchet-jobs, isn’t necessarily an accurate take on reality. It’s a measure of the success of decades of swift-boating. That you actually make that assertion, shows you’re not thinking about this issue rationally. And you add still more nonsense in the second sentence, asserting that erroneously thinking she’s “untrustworthy” must be a sign of mental illness, rather than simply being incorrect. Your position is incoherent. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/135 "2016-08-29T23:55:41Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Sweet! Then we could say, “The burden of proof is now on you to prove this photo isn’t real!” No one would ever bear any responsibility again! Do you actually not understand how the burden of proof works? Prove to me you’re not a murderer. I’ll wait. If you’re asserting a quid pro quo, you need to demonstrate it. Not point at a list and gasp. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/136 "2016-08-30T01:18:54Z")
[AP’s ‘Big Story’ on Clinton Foundation is big failure](http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/opinions/ap-gets-it-wrong-on-clinton-reyes/index.html) > [@](#): > > The AP goes on to note that Clinton met with other donors, with the head of an AIDS charity and with the president of the Kennedy Center. The key takeaway is that, in all of these cases, there are no allegations of illegal conduct. There is no evidence of impropriety. None. > > Instead, the AP story relies on the notion, popular on the right, that the Clintons are presumed to be guilty of possible ethical violations. In fact, the most concrete allegation the reporters come up with against Clinton is the she may have helped a wealthy businessman with a visa. That’s it. It’s hard to see how this qualifies as an exposé or breaking news. [The AP’s big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess](http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting) > [@](#): > > Except it turns out not to be true. The nut fact that the AP uses to lead its coverage is wrong, and Braun and Sullivan’s reporting reveals absolutely no unethical conduct. In fact, they found so little unethical conduct that an enormous amount of space is taken up by a detailed recounting of the time Clinton tried to help a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom. I wonder how TriPolar managed to keep missing all these follow-up stories. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/137 "2016-08-30T03:53:07Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Do you actually not understand how the burden of proof works? > > Prove to me you’re not a murderer. I’ll wait. You lost the context of what I said. It was a humorous response to a suggestion that Clinton could prove her innocence by photoshopping a check with a memo that says “Not a quid pro quo.” Then she could demand that others “prove this wrong,” batting the burden of proof into the other guys’ court. It wasn’t a serious suggestion. It’s an observation on the failure of the claims, right now, that it’s “up to Clinton” to prove that she hasn’t engaged in quid pro quo selling of favors. In other words, they’re demanding that “she prove she’s not a murderer: we’ll wait.” > [@](#): > > If you’re asserting a quid pro quo, you need to demonstrate it. Not point at a list and gasp. That is exactly the point that **DonLogan** was making, and with which I was agreeing. It isn’t up to Clinton to prove innocence; it’s up to her attackers to prove guilt. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/138 "2016-08-30T04:39:53Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > You lost the context of what I said. It was a humorous response to a suggestion that Clinton could prove her innocence by photoshopping a check with a memo that says “Not a quid pro quo.” Then she could demand that others “prove this wrong,” batting the burden of proof into the other guys’ court. > > It wasn’t a serious suggestion. It’s an observation on the failure of the claims, right now, that it’s “up to Clinton” to prove that she hasn’t engaged in quid pro quo selling of favors. In other words, they’re demanding that “she prove she’s not a murderer: we’ll wait.” > > That is exactly the point that **DonLogan** was making, and with which I was agreeing. It isn’t up to Clinton to prove innocence; it’s up to her attackers to prove guilt. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/139 "2016-08-30T04:57:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Why can’t you just answer the question? It’s a question of which is worse: taking meetings with campaign contributors, or taking meetings with charitable contributors. > > Eagerly looking forward to your clear answer. > > ETA: heck, you can even say that one of the scenarios is murder and one is kidnapping. My question is, which is which? Or,ya know, we could stop the with the ‘But Billy did it too!’ and ‘So what? Your guy did worse things!’ bullshit rationalization of unethical behavior and expect our politicians to behave with just a little bit moral sense. But that would be asking too much, now wouldn’t it? Slee ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369/140 "2016-08-30T05:27:22Z")
> [@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. As I’m sure someone has pointed out in the interim between this post and my last one, the numbers are HIGHLY skewed in that report, as is demonstrated in each of the denunciations. The AP’s ‘facts’ are, **in fact,** twisted completely out of proportion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-charity-quid-pro-quo/764369.md?page=8)