Hillary wants to know why there is a one standard for her, and not for everyone else. I’d like to know, too.
Patronage and Cronyism.
Nearly synonymous, patronage and cronyism are a politician’s way of rewarding friends and financial backers by appointing them to cabinet positions or using political office to benefit them.
They aren't hypothetical concepts - they have come about by countless examples of politicians doing favors for their supporters. They can be summed up by the phrase Quid pro quo, which literally means "something for something," and has come to be known as an exchange, a you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours.
It is fairly well accepted here in the U.S. that when a politician accepts a sum of money from an interest group, and then that interest group receives a favor, the money most certainly influenced that decision. Quid pro quo.
But we are all to now expect that despite accepting millions of dollars from Wall Street firms, Hillary Clinton is exempt from this scrutiny. She and her supporters smugly declare that this insinuation is a conspiracy theory. Because of Hillary, the concept of cronyism has reverted to merely hypothetical. It only exists as a theory, unproven, without precedence.
One could claim that Hillary hasn’t doled out any favors yet, so therefore it’s impossible to surmise that she might.
Yesterday, the rec list was treated to a diary in which the author accused Bernie Sanders of insinuating that Hillary Clinton is guilty of the same type of corruption that Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is being sent to prison for.
It's not an accurate comparison, but it does make for a great example. Governor McDonnell received about $135,000 worth of ‘gifts’ from the owner of a dietary supplement company. Then, he claimed the supplements worked for him. Notably absent in this scenario is any abuse of his Gubernatorial powers — McDonnell did not use his office to further the cause of his benefactor. He used his stature as Governor to make an endorsement which otherwise might not have had as much impact. But he still is going to prison. Why? Because the mere appearance of impropriety is enough for it to be called a crime. No Quid pro quo needs to be proven, because everyone agrees that merely accepting money and things of value while in office is sufficient to compromise one’s integrity.
In 2008, Hillary campaigned on a platform of opposing a U.S.-Columbia trade agreement, and then, as Secretary of State, she promoted it. In the interval, millions of dollars flowed from a Columbian oil company to the Clinton Foundation.
This degree of separation might provide just enough deniability for Hillary to escape the fate of Bob McDonnell. She didn’t receive any money, her husband’s foundation received it. Proving that this endowment influenced the changing of her position regarding the Columbian trade pact is beside the point. If the case of Bob McDonnell is any indication, the actual Quid pro quo is irrelevant.
We assume that McDonnell is corrupt, even though his office was not involved in granting any favors. But in a case where the State Department was directly involved in lobbying for a trade agreement that benefited one of the Clinton Foundation’s contributors, the routine scrutiny that follows is now a conspiracy theory. Hillary accepted millions of dollars from Wall Street, but the notion that she would return that largess with political favors is a conspiracy theory.
Hillary maintains that there will be no cronyism in her administration. She makes this claim and at the same time refuses to rule out the appointment of a Goldman Sachs executive as secretary of the treasury.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have found the rare exception of a politician who is beyond reproach, who would not dare allow money to influence her decisions! Cronyism could not possibly apply to her, because She's Hillary.
We truly do have one standard for every other politician and another specifically tailored for Hillary Clinton.