Hillary’s Failed Quid Pro Quo (some foundation donors may be unhappy)

From: americanthinker.com,  by James Mullin,  on Nov 18, 2016, bolding is Garnet92’s


If you’re a basketball player who has been entrusted with the task of intentionally throwing a game in which you are playing, it is an exceedingly bad thing if you sprain an ankle just beforehand and are unable to play.  Granted, it’s not your fault, but you’ve likely received money up front for your services, and being unable to play amounts to your breaching the contract.  Given that the “other party” in this contract can consist of some rather unsavory types with poorly developed senses of humor, you, the sidelined player, may find yourself in a highly difficult situation.

I submit that the large numbers of sizable “donations” to Mrs. Clinton’s “foundation” were made with the assumption that Hillary would become president.  The size and source of the donations suggest that the donations were made on the assumption that presidential favors would one day be paid.  Not secretary of state-level favors, but chief executive-type favors.  And then along comes November 8, and the unthinkable happens.  We then have the situation where money has been paid, but the favor cannot be returned.

Given that the donors, in this case, may have the same poorly developed senses of existential humor as in the above sports analogy, I’d surmise that the Clintons may have somewhat of a situation on their hands about now.  If, e.g., you are the Wahhabi Oil Company and you’ve donated 20 million dollars to keep a lid on American coal or natural gas production, only to find that your player can no longer throw the game, do you just chalk that up to fate, the vagaries of politics, the will of Allah?  I’m thinking you might want some or all of that money returned.  And therein lies the heart of the predicament.

The Clintons might want to increase their lifespan expectancy by returning said funds, but I’m guessing that returning money is not their strong suit.  In addition, our upcoming newly functional Department of Justice might be very interested in seeing quite sizable round-trip money transfers coming and going from the Clinton Foundation, something you don’t typically see in outfits like the Salvation Army or the United Way.

I’ve never heard of a presidential candidate who prepared a fireworks celebration in advance for her election night victory.  That such in fact transpired here attests to the assurance that our Madam Secretary had in the election outcome.  Given the degree of apoplexy this past week in not just our media, but also the foreign media, I’d venture to say that apoplexy might have extended to the Clinton Foundation donors themselves.  And that could be a supremely riveting story to which we may never be privy.


Is it not reasonable to assume that many if not all of these donations were made to the Clinton Foundation in expectation of a quid pro quo? With Hillary in the White House, and in a position to view these contributors favorably, isn’t it appropriate to think that she would be predisposed to grant favors to those who were her family foundation’s benefactors? It’s called “pay to play” and the Clintons didn’t just practice it, they practically invented it.

The interesting point made by Mr. Mullin is how these contributors will now react when it’s painfully clear that there can be no return on their “investment.” When one party reneges on their part in a quid pro quo arrangement, it’s no longer “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.” Now, it’s just a gift.

Do YOU really believe that these countries gave that money to the Clinton Crime Family with NO expectation of a return on their “investment”? 

Now, it appears, that the shoe may be on the other foot. While it’s believed that many people could have testified against the Clintons about a number of criminal activities, the possibility of an “unfortunate lethal accident” kept them quiet. With good reason, many curious deaths have happened to too many Clinton witnesses to be coincidental. Now, they may be the ones who will have to be careful lest an unfortunate pantsuit accident downs Hillary Clinton herself, for good.


Categories: Political

Tags: ,

1 reply

  1. This could get really interesting, Garnet, because there’s no way those Arabs forked over that much money just to watch it go down the drain, and, as was stated, it’s going to be hard for them to pay it back without someone noticing.

    I’m baffled why Australia gave them so much – may have to do some research on that one.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: