https://youtube.com/watch?v=NZ0l_OnpIOU
Bret Baier read a statement from the Hillary Clinton campaign that denied any wrongdoing with the Clinton Foundation during her tenure at the State Department, and Charles Krauthammer took aim at the way people look at this issue:
Everybody here is wrong. So much error, so little time. That statement is meaningless. Who cares if there were 17 other conversations or even meetings? What matters is: Were there any that were as a result of giving money to the Clintons? The answer is yes and that in itself is damning. It may not be illegal but it’s damning. As for James, there’s a big difference between an allegation in a book and something in the e-mail showing by the hand of either Hillary or an associate that there actually was a consideration of a certain action. If you find that, you have found the Holy Grail.
Baier then followed up saying:
Where is the line of the quid pro quo? Is paying millions to the foundation in order to get a meeting with the secretary before she leaves for Israel and you actually get it, to talk about Israeli policy, is that the level of quid pro quo? Does that get there?
Krauthammer continued:
Technically speaking, if you were a lawyer, you would say no. All of it is the giving of a favor. The meeting, in and of itself, is the giving of a favor. However, historically, in our system and everywhere, people give money to campaigns. Why do they give it? Out of the goodness of their heart?
The point of giving money is to get access. We accept that in our campaigns. We accept it everywhere. If access were considered a quid pro quo, jails would be groaning with politicians. But we accept that fact, so we actually have a higher standard — I’m not sure it’s the best standard but it’s the one that we live with — and that standard is: you actually have to do something, you have to pass a law, you have to enact a measure, you have to give a waiver, you have to give a permit. That’s what we look for, and that’s what could be buried in these e-mails, I don’t know. But up until now, it’s been access, which by tradition and convention, we seem to accept as corrupt perhaps but not illegal.