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

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

https://medium.com/@ClintonFdn/a-commitment-to-honesty-transparency-and-accountability-f3ccba8bb033

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054026/Mitt-Romney-says-Hillary-Clinton-s-latest-scandal-looks-like-BRIBERY-s-hammered-hiding-involvement-sweetheart-

Swiftboating in 2016; Is Hillary being swiftboated?

Beware the swiftboaters bearing tydings of wrong doing . They may be trying to sink your candidate.  Swiftboaters have been in business ever since politics in a democracy and a free press existed but they did not get their name until the 2004 Presidential campaign.  It has become the modern word for unfair campaign smear tactics.

In 2004 a 527 political group ”Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”, drew on a  book by John O’Neill, political activist supporting the Viet Nam War since 1971 and a long time antagonist of John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for President. The Swiftboater group  ran ads near the end of the campaign which attempted to defame Kerry’s war record in commanding a swift boat operation in Vietnam.  It was a very important element in Kerry’s defeat. It was after the election all but one of the  crew members who actually served under Kerry in the swift boat came forward to attest to Kerry’s deserving the medals , the supportive Navy Inspector General’s Report was released on Kerry’s request, and admission by his Commanding Officer, the chief accuser, that he had of no direct personal knowledge of the events leading to medals. Kerry made a strategic error in not requesting release of official military records earlier in the controversy.

Given the GOP’s evident strategy of assassinating Hillary Clinton’s character, expect the GOP dominated Congress and their media partners to keep the issue alive by dragging out further investigations, rehashing and digging up more allegations.

 Making a candidate out as personally untrustworthy is a time honored political strategy when opponents are neither unified or have strong issue messages appealing to those beyond their base, like this year.  It is possible for perception, right or wrong, of character flaws to drown out the issue debate in a general election as it did to in 2004. It is particularly effective when the attack is launched nearer election day, giving little chance for lining up friendly witnesses, documents, and other refuting proof.

 There is a possible swiftboat attack in the making.  The pre- release of a book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash, to Fox News and the New York Times, alleges suspicious links between donations by foreign governments to the Clinton Family Foundation and State Department decisions made by Clinton when she was Secretary of State.  

 Liberal watchdog Media Matters traced Schweizer, the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), to a conservative group with close ties to the billionaire Mercer family funding Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential run.  Per Media Matters, GAI has also received substantial support from groups backed by Charles and David Koch.

The Clinton Family Foundation appears to have used those donations for humanitarian aid, though  speaking fees and unreported donations definitely deserve scrutiny.   Digging by the New York Times has just begun. Their purpose is to find proof if Clinton helped Foundation donors get favorable State Department decisions. The smoking gun was missing from Schweizer’s book.  Unlike Kerry, Clinton has eighteen months to fight back and to be prepared for nth hour surprises. She must deal with each allegation quickly and she should hold nothing back that would clear her.   

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-memo-details-attack-plan-117222.html

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/21/who-funds-peter-schweizers-government-accountab/203355

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp