ABC News: How Clinton donor got on sensitive intelligence board

[JonLeibowitz]

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department's professional staff.

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]

1. It's disturbing and it offers evidence of, at the very least,

the appearance of a serious conflict of interest.

It's a simple equation:

Big money=Access. Access=influence.

[JonLeibowitz]

2. Yes. I'll be the first to say that I doubt it is at all illegal. It however looks improper & corrupt

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]

62. "Improper & Corrupt, but Not Technically Illegal", that could be the title of HRC's autobiography.

[onehandle]

3. THE END IS NIGH

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10136548

[JonLeibowitz]

4. This is a straight news report from a reputable source. It will not be off-limits after June 16.

Any thoughts on the content of the piece? Otherwise your comment appears to be quite offtopic.

[TheBlackAdder]

11. Are you projecting your thoughts, since Jon's post did not exhibit a "game plan"?

.


Will your "game plan" involve narcing and "Abuse Alerts?"


.

[cali]

5. sorry, no. You seem to be living in a fantasy world where

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. I don't see how this violates Skinners terms.

[PoliticAverse]

6. Donors are supposed to get ambassadorships to 2nd tier countries. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

9. Oh for fucks sake

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.

Really?

[arcane1]

10. Are the emails fake?

[ismnotwasm]

15. Did you read them?

I did.

[IDemo]

24. Yes, I did

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]

13. Spin is spin

[JonLeibowitz]

14. The investigation was all by ABC. The emails came from CU.

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]

16. The emails aren't nearly as impressive as you seem to think

Another member kindly provided a link to them. I'm still pursuing them but so far--meh.

[JonLeibowitz]

18. To me the emails indicate that nobody but SOS' high level staffers knew what the qualifications were

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]

21. Yet another tempest in a teapot

There is no "there" there.

[JonLeibowitz]

25. Word salad. No refutation of what was claimed.

[ismnotwasm]

27. Word salad is a technical psychiatric term

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]

36. It's also a term from computing, and has colloquial uses as well. Anyway, more deflection.

[Lars39]

17. It would not have mattered who requested the emails under FOIA.

Content remains the same.

[ismnotwasm]

19. Exactly

Read the content.

[JonLeibowitz]

20. This is just attack the messenger strategy.

It's all some have, to avoid discussing the content.

[ismnotwasm]

22. The content is not that impressive.

[JonLeibowitz]

23. Ok.

I wasn't really trying to impress you by the way. I doubt ABC was either.

[ismnotwasm]

26. Well now

That's not exactly how I meant the word, but alrighty then.

[6chars]

28. It must not be June 16 yet.

[cali]

29. this won't go away by June 16th. And legitimate news stories

about the FBI investigation will not be banned after June 16.

[reformist2]

63. Yes, when June 16th comes, all will be calm and serene. No more pesky dissenting voices...

[Blanks]

30. This is a 'gotcha' issue...

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]

37. new meme... pay to play is now considered a 'trap'

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]

40. If this 'abuse' is widespread...

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]

46. Proving such widespread abuse is more difficult if the pay-to-players are actually qualified.

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]

51. No...

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]

53. I am saying that it doesn't follow that all pay to players are unqualified.

You can still receive undue access compared to your peers who are equally or better qualified.

[Blanks]

55. I'm not arguing that he's qualified...

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]

31. Three points...

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, women’s empowerment, etc. See Factcheck’s 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 didn’t get a copy of Fernando’s 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]

32. Ok...

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:

Mr. Rose is Executive Vice President, Global Head for Strategic Planning and Business Development for the Enterprise Division of Thomson Reuters. In this capacity, he works with the company’s executive leadership to develop, identify and implement strategic business initiatives and opportunities and advise on potential partnerships, investments and acquisitions. Mr. Rose serves on the National Security Agency’s “Cyber Awareness & Response” panel which provides advice on policy, systems, threats, capabilities, mitigations, stakeholders and players in support of the government’s cyber-terrorism efforts. Mr.Rose was a founding member of U.S. Secret Service’s N.Y. Electronic Crimes Task Force established to prevent and detect attacks on the nation’s financial and critical infrastructures.

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]

34. THE FOUNDATION IS A SLUSH FUND GODDAMNIT!

[HumanityExperiment]

38. One MAIN point...

pay to play...

the emails show facts that point to a different conclusion than what you posted

[Planot]

59. +1

[BlueStateLib]

33. Ya right, Rajiv Fernando is on Foreign Policy Program Leadership Committee at The Brookings

a think tank and another think tank, American Security Project
http://www.americansecurityproject.org/about/board-of-directors/

[JonLeibowitz]

35. Question: when did he get these board positions? Before / After this appointment?

[JaneQPublic]

50. Is it "Pay to Play" when Presidents give donors ambassadorships?

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]

52. Yes that is corruption and is wrong.

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]

54. Frankly, I tend to agree.

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]

57. The question is how did he get on ANY of them.

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]

39. I wonder if this was cross posted at free republic.

[JonLeibowitz]

41. I don't know and don't care. Paying attention to freepers is a waste of time.

The article is from a prominent news organization so I expect it is being widely discussed, of course.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Non responsive

Do you know whether or not it was cross posted at free republic?

Thank you in advance.

[JonLeibowitz]

43. I do not know. Nor do I care.

If they discuss it we cannot ?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Walked right into that one.

If they discuss it we cannot ?

Then you can discuss it over there.

[JonLeibowitz]

45. I prefer to discuss it here as I am not a member there nor do I wish to be.

Nice chatting!

Now, back to the OP content for me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. There are six things the Lord hates,

There are six things the Lord hates,
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]

48. This topic is about a news item. Nobody is forcing you to participate. Bye!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. I like it here. The indomitable DSB 's light will continue to shine

Sing along, Jon.

[Uncle Joe]

56. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, JonLeibowitz.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

58. Shades of "Heck of a job, Brownie!"

Dude is CLEARLY qualified to be advising on crucial arms control issues.

[Barack_America]

60. Hmm. This is concerning.

I hope there aren't more examples of this.

[pinebox]

61. Clinton's have ZERO integrity & this is proof positive.

I doubt it's illegal but it sure as hell is unethical!

[Hiraeth]

64. I wish I could afford to buy any job I wanted:

donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field

spin that, people.

[randome]

65. It's an unpaid, volunteer position and the board includes a wide range of talent.

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]