In the latest, 13th daily Podesta email release, one particular email sticks out: on February 7, 2016 Neera Tanden, a close confidante of Hillary Clinton and according to many one of the key masterminds of her campaign strategy, asks John Podesta a question which may be interpreted that banker money received by Hillary can be deemed equivalent to a bribe.
Specifically, Tanden asks Podesta that “speaking at the banks… don’t shoot me but if we lose badly maybe she should just return the money.” To which she then adds “say she gets the anger and moves on. Feels a little like an open wound.”
The exchange may be one of the more clear indications of a tentative “quid-pro-quo” arrangement, in which cash is provided in exchange for ‘services’ which naturally would not be rendered if Hillary were to “lose badly.”
Luckily for Tanden and Podesta, not to mention Hillary, at least according to the latest scientific polls, losing badly is not a contingency that should be a major consideration, at least not as of this moment.