Does quid always mean quo?
Mitt Romney said it “looks like” Hillary Clinton committed “
bribery” , based upon what he read in a New York Times story, regarding
dealings of a Russian purchase of interest in a US uranium company. He, coming from the investment world, of all
people, should know to wait until all facts were known and that there is proof
that a quid resulted in a quo.
I once had an international investment banker whose job it
was to negotiate finance deals with foreign governments and corporations sit
down and tell me how corruption works in business dealings abroad. . The problem is that most many countries who
do business around the world think that even the more honest countries work the
same as they do. They give a quid and
expect a quo. Often they give quids
without being asked. They just believe
they will get a quo anyway.
My banker friend gave
me an example. His firm was competing
against other international
banking firms from various countries for a lucrative deal in
an eastern European country emerging from Communism. It was famous for corruption. One gimmick was that the ruling strong arm president,
allegedly elected democratically, set up a charitable foundation in the name of
a family member, who in this case used the foundation as a cash cow. The
winning ticket depended on making a sizeable contribution to the charity. The request for a donation was made in
advance of the contract being awarded.
Incidentally, both US law and his firm would not allow it, and his firm
lost the contract.
When you hear about the Clinton Family Foundation commenting
that not all of those donations from foreign governments were given from the
goodness of their hearts, realize that most of the world believes their quid,
even if not tied to a quo in advance, will result in a quo and giving to a family
foundation provides the mechanism.
What Hillary Clinton must show there was no quo there and to
answer every one of the instances raised by her attackers. She has begun. The
State Department Assistant Secretary of State who chaired the committee
approving the Russian uranium deal issued a statement attesting that Clinton
never intervened. The statement from the Assistant Secretary got buried in the
very end of a New York Times article bringing the matter to public attention.
One part of the story particularly raising eyebrows is that
Russian contributions to the Foundation were never disclosed. The Foundation
admitted the error that the Russian gift was co-mingled with non-governmental
donations in their report and tax filings, but it was listed in the annual
reconciled audit statement posted on the Foundation’s web site.
That was shoddy work the
part or the New York Times and the Clinton Cash author, in their
eagerness to rake some muck. Hopefully going forward, Clinton’s defense gets
media coverage equal to the allegations and others eager to comment read the
whole article or wait for the accused’s defense.
important update: No Clinton was on the Foundation payroll but the Foundation paid their airfare...a finding by a charity watchdog organization, buried in a sentence in a NY Post article: http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
A version of this was published in the www.skyhidailynews. com May 8, 2015
important update: No Clinton was on the Foundation payroll but the Foundation paid their airfare...a finding by a charity watchdog organization, buried in a sentence in a NY Post article: http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
A version of this was published in the www.skyhidailynews. com May 8, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054026/Mitt-Romney-says-Hillary-Clinton-s-latest-scandal-looks-like-BRIBERY-s-hammered-hiding-involvement-sweetheart-
No comments:
Post a Comment