Was There a Quid Pro Quo?

The definition of of “Quid Pro Quo” is: “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something of value”. Do any prominent people in our political system seem to be engaged in the practice of a “quid pro quo”? Does the name Clinton come to mind?

Well, if not, maybe it should. It seems that every time the Clinton's got paid for a speech or a donation to the Clinton Foundation, something good happened to the donor (mostly financial). That smelled something like a “quid pro quo”, don't you think?

When the Clinton's left the White House in 2001, Hillary declared that she and Bill were “broke” (mainly because of legal fees to fight Bill Clinton's legal woes regarding his philandering and lying before a grand jury). Well, since that time up until the present, the Clinton's net worth has reached more than $150 million. What did they do to amass such wealth in such a short period of time? Did they invent a product, did they introduce a marketable service concept, or did they inherit money in order to be able to generate such a windfall of riches? The answer, quite obviously, is “NO”, they offered themselves, their contacts, and their insider trading among the political and business elite to become extremely wealthy.

The best selling book, by author Peter Schweizer, called “Clinton Cash”, laid out a whole lot of instances where the Clinton's used their influence to get things that other “mortals” couldn't get. Even though Bill Clinton was no longer in office, he was an ex-president, and Hillary was a senator representing New York, and then in 2009, Secretary of State in the first term of the Obama administration, and with her eyes on running for president in 2016. The Clinton's also set up a “slush fund” called the Clinton Foundation, which was set up to perform humanitarian good works around the world. Quite a lofty goal, if they followed through.

From 2001 to the present, the Clinton's used their positions to “feather their nest” financially by getting large speaking fees (from $200,000 to $750,000 per speech) for themselves, and donations to the Clinton Foundation, as “cash cows” to spread their influence around the U.S. and around the world.

Just recently, it has been revealed that during her (Hillary) stint as Secretary of State, Hillary intervened with the IRS on behalf of the behemoth bank UBS, located in Switzerland, in mitigating the problems UBS had with the IRS about foreign bank accounts of Americans. The problem was solved as a result of her intervention, and immediately a donation by UBS ($600,000) to the Clinton Foundation was made, and speaking fees was paid to Bill Clinton (totaling$1.5 million). Was that just a coincidence, or was it a “quid pro quo”?

Another instance in which the Clinton's got involved in was with the cell phone giant company, Ericsson, a Swedish company doing a lot of business in the U.S. Ericsson was accused of dealing with Iran while economic sanctions on Iran were still in effect. Ericsson paid a large speaking fee to Bill Clinton and made a donation to the Clinton Foundation, and voila, the problem they had by violating the sanctions on Iran were settled in Ericsson's favor. Did the position that Hillary held as Secretary of State have anything to do with the outcome? Was this just another coincidence or was this this just another “quid pro quo”?

The list of shady deals as described in the book, “Clinton's Cash”, goes on and on. Were the actions of the Clinton's in creating financial windfalls for themselves and their cronies, if looked at by any impartial observer, would they feel that a “quid pro quo” was attached and in play? And now we have Hillary running for president with a honesty and trustworthy rating at a minus 60%. I think the electorate may have finally seen that both Bill and Hillary are inveterate grifters, and shouldn't be sent back to the White House.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann