2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumABC News: How Clinton donor got on sensitive intelligence board
The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to "protect the name" of the Secretary, "stall" the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.
Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.
A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando's only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.
Read more: http://abc11.com/news/how-clinton-donor-got-on-sensitive-intelligence-board/1379818/
This was previous in LBN but was locked, more discussion there: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141483781
Discussion?
cali
(114,904 posts)the appearance of a serious conflict of interest.
It's a simple equation:
Big money=Access. Access=influence.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)One of the things we heard in the primary campaign was that without direct evidence of quid pro quo there was no corrupting influences of big money. This is one of the more obvious cases demonstrating that as false.
I was surprised that this hadn't broken earlier, but apparently the real story is only in the e-mails that ABC News didn't have until Citizens United leaked them (with intentional timing, no doubt). They were stymied by State's stalling and lack of transparency, and only saw half the puzzle.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Any thoughts on the content of the piece? Otherwise your comment appears to be quite offtopic.
Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #4)
onehandle This message was self-deleted by its author.
TheBlackAdder
(28,076 posts).
Will your "game plan" involve narcing and "Abuse Alerts?"
.
cali
(114,904 posts)the FBI investigation will magically disappear after June 15. It will not. And pretending it's not an issue that democrats will have to deal with, is simply ridiculous. Legitimate stories about this issue will not be hidden or blocked.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Really?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Response to arcane1 (Reply #10)
IDemo This message was self-deleted by its author.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)I did.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)The effort came early to protect Madam Secretary from any fallout (pardon the pun). Efforts to assemble a justification for the appointment followed, ultimately claiming his unique qualifiers included 'risk management' and IT background. He resigned, claiming business pressure but more likely knew the situation would bubble over if he hung around.
Nothing likely illegal, just the usual pay-to-play and what we'd expect.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)All this is very clearly described in the article. Unless you doubt the veracity of the emails themselves then I don't see your point at all.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Another member kindly provided a link to them. I'm still pursuing them but so far--meh.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)And they are panicking as they realize the person is not qualified. As they should have, because they realized it was wrong.
The speculation is whether this donor paid to get access and placement on this committee. I agree that the emails do not prove this, as only Cheryl Mills or HRC can speak to that.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)There is no "there" there.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Very specific. One of my pet peeves is when it's used incorrectly, I am, however used to it by now. I'm not refuting because I'm not seeing the "evidence" for the claim per the emails. I could see where it would be inferred I guess.
Woke up with a headache and I'm kind of grumpy. I don't usually play in this pool. Two cups of coffee, and I'm good to go.
You have a most excellent day.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Lars39
(26,093 posts)Content remains the same.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Read the content.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)It's all some have, to avoid discussing the content.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I wasn't really trying to impress you by the way. I doubt ABC was either.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)That's not exactly how I meant the word, but alrighty then.
6chars
(3,967 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)about the FBI investigation will not be banned after June 16.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)It can't be discussed in the press because of national security, but you can't not discuss it because then you're hiding something.
SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE BOARD - commit that to memory because in a couple of weeks when they're attacking the Clintons for revealing SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE this is what they'll be talking about.
They (ABC and Citizens United) dug through emails that they got through a freedom of information request (so you know the information wasn't classified) and are asking questions that probably can't be answered without revealing classified information.
It's a trap.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)when did pay to play become a 'trap'?
if the fella wasn't qualified to be on the board or his creds were suspect, then why all the emails trying to cover for him and his spot?
why is the Clinton Foundation mentioned in the article and this fellas fund raising and donations mentioned?
how deep is this 'insulation' process to commit to for HRC's sake during the GE?
this goes to leadership qualities, this will be used against HRC, is this the best defense we as DEMs have against this? 'it's a trap'?
aren't we better than this as DEM party?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Then it would be easy to pick an appointment that she made without the appointment being a member of a board dealing with classified information.
You see how that works? Either there aren't a lot of suspect appointments or they've intentionally selected an appointment that she can't discuss in the press without being accused of a national security breach.
I'm not the one claiming that the board is a sensitive intelligence board, I'm just pointing out how inappropriate it is for the press to bring up this appointment if there are 'so many'.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)There can still be pay to play with qualified individuals. It is simply harder (impossible?) to discover.
This is an easy case to claim pay to play because the State Staffers cannot justify his credentials.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)He's a good person to investigate (by the opposition) because they (the Clinton camp) can't talk about his credentials.
It's probably a matter of national security to discuss the resumes of individuals appointed to boards involving national security.
Again, if there is a lot of these 'pay to play' appointments, they should have no trouble finding an appointment that answering questions about their qualifications doesn't possibly threaten national security issues.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)You can still receive undue access compared to your peers who are equally or better qualified.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)That's not even the issue. I'm not arguing that there wasn't something inappropriate going on.
I can't speak to that. As far as I know he's not qualified and the criticism is warranted. The problem here is that they selected an appointment that it would be wrong to openly discuss because of the nature of the board that he's appointed to.
That, coupled with the fact that it's Friday (if it's bullshit the retraction won't appear in the news) makes me think that it's a trap to get her to justify the appointment, which they'll later point to as an example of discussing classified information, and if they don't try to justify the appointment, then they're not responding to allegations.
There's only wrong answers. It's a setup.
JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)1. The Clinton Foundation, although often portrayed as a political slush fund by anti-Clinton factions, is primarily a successful charitable organization. Over 88 percent of its earnings go to such causes as global health care, poverty, womens empowerment, etc. See Factchecks article:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
2. Fernando was not the only recent ISAB member to have credentials within the financial realm. Check the below link of current members for Mr. Robert N. Rose, President of Robert Rose Consulting, LLC and former Senior Advisor to the Chairman of Bridgewater Associates, one of the largest hedge funds in the world:
http://www.state.gov/t/avc/isab/c27632.htm
3. Although ABC News didnt get a copy of Fernandos resume, Wiki provides details indicating he has significant background in foreign affairs beyond the State Dept. and in philanthropy beyond the Clinton Foundation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raj_Fernando
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)1. Nobody said otherwise here. However, it is still possible for pay-to-play to occur, despite its legitimate philanthropy. Also note that he is a prominent Clinton political donor, and has been for some time.
2. You say that as if Robert Rose doesn't have other experience that qualifies him, as if he doesn't have this experience:
http://federalnewsradio.com/sponsored-content/2011/12/robert-n-rose/
(the only informational background I could find)
3. Since we do not have a resume it is not possible to know whether the "background in foreign affairs" was present when appointed, or if he was named afterwards.
Darb
(2,807 posts)HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)pay to play...
the emails show facts that point to a different conclusion than what you posted
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)a think tank and another think tank, American Security Project
http://www.americansecurityproject.org/about/board-of-directors/
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)For right or wrong, it's been a practice for ages by both GOP and Dem presidents to reward campaign donors with positions as ambassadors, sometimes to countries they've never visited, where languages are spoken that they do not speak.
Even Obama has rewarded donors this way:
https://www.opensecrets.org/obama/ambassadors.php
Other records will show similar appointments by GOP presidents.
Truly, it's a little difficult to see how this latest Hillary outrage is any different or worse.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I would say it is pay to play, but certainly corruption. It's what you get with big money playing such a role in the system.
JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)That said, it remains standard practice today as it has for decades. And whether this Fernando case is any worse, that's certainly debatable.
Bottom line: I can't see exactly how it benefited Fernando or his business to sit on what had to be one boring-ass board, especially if he indeed had neither interest or expertise in the subject matter.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)The dude's a trader. His education was focuses on economics and history.
What in his education and background qualifies him to be involved with foreign policy, especially involving nuclear matters?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The article is from a prominent news organization so I expect it is being widely discussed, of course.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Do you know whether or not it was cross posted at free republic?
Thank you in advance.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)If they discuss it we cannot ?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Then you can discuss it over there.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Nice chatting!
Now, back to the OP content for me.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community
It seems to me this thread is replete with discord and conflict.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Sing along, Jon.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Thanks for the thread, JonLeibowitz.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Dude is CLEARLY qualified to be advising on crucial arms control issues.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)I hope there aren't more examples of this.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I doubt it's illegal but it sure as hell is unethical!
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)spin that, people.
randome
(34,845 posts)Anything else I can help you with?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]