[eldavojohn]

So you're effectively arguing that quid pro quo isn't quid pro quo if you can't prove the counterfactual (that this contract would have happened without drilling rights)?

Doesn't that seem ... stupid? To put the onus on the people who have no access to any communications or details about what looks like corruption? It's my opinion that without forcing them to do everything in the open and prove to us that there is no quid pro quo, you're going to end up with Soviet USSR style government real fast.

I'm sure this is "business as usual" but ... maybe it shouldn't be?

[rayiner]

It’s literally in the definition of “quid pro quo”: “a favor or advantage granted in return for something.”

By your line of logic, if Elizabeth Warren votes for something that benefits Harvard, that’s improper without any evidence that Harvard is giving her something in return.