Bahrain’s Quid Pro Quo

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Aug 2016

Various spokesliars for the Clinton campaign are defending Hillary from accusations of selling favors of the U.S. government by saying there was “no proof of a quid pro quo” for donations to the Clinton Foundation.  Never mind the meetings these donors had with Hillary when she was Secretary of State; that doesn’t count as a quid pro quo.  There is no proof that changes in U.S. policy were made by Hillary in exchange for donations to the Foundation.

Let’s ignore for the moment how it came to be that Russian oligarchs came to control 20 percent of America’s uranium production after donations were made to the Clinton Foundation.  Foreign control of a strategic U.S. asset requires a sign-off by the State Department, but never mind that.

Let’s instead focus for a moment on the donation the Crown Prince of Bahrain made in order to get face time with Hillary.  What could be his quo in exchange for the quid?  He got his face time thanks to the intervention of the Clinton Foundation through Huma Abedin.  Bahrain got an arms deal with the United States.

But let’s say that that arms deal was already in the works, and that it was a done deal.  Therefore, the spokesliars say again, there was no quid pro quo, there was no arms deal as a result of the meeting with Hillary.  The arms deal was already in the works.  But that’s not how it need be portrayed in Bahrain.

Bahrain is one of those oil Emirates, a near absolute monarchy.  Absolute monarchies always have problems with legitimacy, especially in these days of democracies.  The monarch is never sure that he won’t be overthrown in some popular uprising or coup d’etat.  The Crown Prince may be unsure of his standing, of his perceived legitimacy, in the political framework of Bahrain.  Yes, he is next in line, but what if other people take advantage of the crisis of succession?  What better way for the Crown Prince to burnish his standing among the Bahraini political set than to be perceived as having a high standing with the United States government?

He got face time with the Secretary of State.  Bahrain got an arms deal with the United States.  The natural perception is that the two are related.  Maybe the deal was in trouble, and the Crown Prince fixed things up.  Anyhow, concern about the political legitimacy of the Crown Prince in Bahraini society was dampened by the meeting with Hillary and the conclusion of the arms deal.  And Bahrain remains an absolute monarchy.

The spokesliars who say that there is no proof of a quid pro quo have no idea of the quos that could be asked for; and they don’t want to know.  They don’t want to entertain the breadth the quos being solicited by the quids.

This morning, Fox News reported that in December, 2010, Huma Abedin was busy arranging which Clinton Foundation donors could sit next to the president of China at a lunch being arranged by the State Department.  Imagine that, having lunch with the president of the biggest emerging market in the world? And an oligarch with plenty of personal power to boot!  American policy wouldn’t be changed if the president of China cut a business deal with, say, a major bank like UBS, or Western Union, for example.  Clinton Foundation donors feel good because they gave big money to a well-known charity, and they wind up with a business opportunity with China.

Is this a quid pro quo?  The spokeliars would deny that there was one – no U.S. policy was changed.  But Hillary sold her powers of access to other rich and powerful political leaders, and maybe these business concerns made a lot of money in China.  It all depends upon the meaning of the word “quo.”

Whenever you have to start parsing meanings with a Clinton supporter, you are face-to-face with a liar, a purblind liar maybe, but a liar nevertheless.

-30-