New Hillary Scandal Checks All the Boxes on the Clinton Controversy Bingo Card

[NWCorona]

"Hillary Clinton had an undeniably great day on Thursday, but Friday brought a stark reminder that as the presumptive Democratic nominee looks ahead to the general election, there will be plenty of people justifiably looking into her past.

Thanks to a newly released batch of State Department emails, ABC News was able to revisit the story of Rajiv Fernando, a wealthy securities trader who gave heavily to both Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation—and who just so happened to land himself a plum spot on a sensitive government intelligence advisory panel after Hillary became secretary of state.

Politicos rewarding donors is sadly not uncommon but what makes this particular example stand out is Fernando’s lack of qualifications for a job that involved advising the secretary of state—and, by extension, the president of the United States—on the topic of nuclear weapons. And if that weren’t enough, the story also looks an awfully lot like a Clinton Controversy Bingo Card. In addition to the appearance of quid pro quo with a major fundraiser, we also have a clear lack of transparency, Clinton loyalists going to great lengths to protect her, questions over access to sensitive government information, and, of course, Hillary’s private email account.

You can read ABC’s full blow-by-blow here, but the short version is this: The rest of the International Security Advisory Board was filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress. But the only thing Fernando had to offer the group was, in ABC’s words, “his technological know-how,” which none of his fellow panelists seemed to find all that helpful. Fernando was so out of place, in fact, that one board member told ABC that none of his colleagues could figure out why he was even there.

Days after the network started asking questions about Fernando in the summer of 2011, he promptly resigned from the panel citing a need to focus on his business interests. He and the State Department declined to make public a copy of his résumé and refused to field follow-up questions at the time. Which brings us back to the present. Via ABC:
The newly released emails reveal that after ABC News started asking questions in August 2011, a State Department official who worked with the advisory board couldn’t immediately come up with a justification for Fernando serving on the panel. His and other emails make repeated references to “S”; ABC News has been told this is a common way to refer to the Secretary of State.

“The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him,” wrote Wade Boese, who was Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an email to [Jamie] Mannina, the press aide. “Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.

ABC was unable to follow the trail directly to Clinton herself, though the emails did suggest her staff was eager to shield her from the controversy and any potential fallout. “We must protect the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s name, as well as the integrity of the Board,” her press aide wrote. “I think it’s important to get down to the bottom of this before there’s any response.”

So just how big of a deal is this? In the big bucket of Clinton controversies (both real and imagined), this is merely a drop. Hillary and her staff had broad leeway to name pretty much whomever they wanted to the board, so while tapping Fernando was highly questionable, it wasn’t illegal. It is impossible to read the ABC report and not get a distinct whiff of favor trading, but there is no smoking gun—as there almost never is when it comes to this type of thing. In a political system where the inputs and outputs are both money and power, proof of guilt, or, really, innocence, rarely exists.

Still, it’s yet one more example of why Clinton is so fortunate that she’s set to face off against Donald Trump in the general."


http://amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/10/how_clinton_donor_rajiv_fernando_got_a_job_as_a_nuclear_expert_he_wasn_t.html

[MFM008]

1. 6 days

Thursday.

[Gomez163]

5. They're going to use every day to keep pounding at the scandal beat.

[tallahasseedem]

16. We're in this together...

6 days and counting...

[All in it together]

156. Except some are more equal than others

Especially the oligarchs.

[Qutzupalotl]

20. After that, we'll never know what will hit us. nt

[George II]

86. Sure we will, you think Trump, et. al. will let anything slip past them?

[Qutzupalotl]

189. No, I'm saying we won't get advance notice here.

We'll find out about the next attack as it's being used.

[apcalc]

52. +1

[SidDithers]

57. 5, and counting...

Sid

[still_one]

76. Now 5 days and counting

[samson212]

83. What's the problem with the OP?

Also, why don't you care about this? Is cronyism not a concern of yours? If I saw a post like this about Bernie Sanders, I'd be inquisitive, not dismissive.

[George II]

87. Attacking the Democratic nominee with speculative "scandal", that's the problem.

[samson212]

98. It's hardly an attack

It's called journalism. Refute the article, if you have problems with it.

[libdem4life]

138. You're new. It's practically protocal here now. This is Hillary Central.

You are not allowed to present any record of her history...video, spoken, written, etc....that is unflattering. That is strictly and officially, well in some number of days, now the job of the Republicans. The nifty one-liners will swashbuckle their way in and cut your post into a thousand pieces or it will be hidden.

LOL.

[samson212]

147. New to posting, not to the site.

I guess I was doing a good job ignoring the insanity. Or is it relatively new? Seems like the whole internet has been a bit crazy for the past few months.

[libdem4life]

186. Ah, yes sit is crazy. All she has to do is come clean. What a concept.

[creeksneakers2]

151. Refute

Here's the other side:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/11/conservative-media-run-faulty-abc-report-allege-hillary-clinton-sold-seat-intelligence-advisory/210871

[samson212]

162. Thanks!

Thanks for the link! Looks like there are those that claim that he deserved the appointment.

I still think the email exchange is a bit troublesome. Check out CNN's coverage from this (saturday) morning.

[swhisper1]

165. maybe you havent heard the news. It is not speculative, and she is not yet the nominee

[zenabby]

187. I agree.

I am a strong Hillary supporter and I don't see anything wrong with this post. Are we going to just ignore any stories that are negative and live in a bubble?

That said, I think politics is an expectations game. The anti-hillary people are expecting a level of "purity" that does not exist in any politician elected to offices so far. Have you heard about the Bernie Sanders story about his wife Jane and Bernie pressurizing the bank to give a loan? Have you seen Bernie's taxes? Why do you think that is?

In order to survive in politics today, you need (1) to make and give favors (2) Fundraise, fundraise, fundraise (3) Be able to work with people who have diametrically opposite views from you and make progress. One of the main reasons women can't shatter the glass ceiling is that it's all an old boys club - it means going and playing golf together, referring friends for positions, and essentially you-help-me, I-help-you. This "purity" test is not going anywhere.

That's how the game is played. If you want to change the game, you have to be in position of power and try to change it, and in order to be in position of power, you have to play the game.

[samson212]

199. Thanks! Information is good!

I think the most important thing, particularly at this point in the election cycle but really all the time, is to try to get at the truth. If the people who want to represent us are doing things we don't agree with, we have to hold them accountable. That doesn't mean that we hate them, or that they haven't passed a "purity test", just that we need transparency and disclosure when possible!

I agree that politics is an expectation game, but I don't agree that the level of purity that I'm looking for doesn't exist. I'll admit that it's a pretty high bar. I don't generally think that politicians will measure up in my mind; I'm used to being disappointed. In 2008, I was very excited by the idea that we could get a candidate (Obama) that talked the right talk. Unfortunately, he wasn't the progressive I'd hoped for. That's not to say that I hate him, or that I repudiate him, just that I have been disappointed by the gap between my expectations and what he delivered.

All that said, Bernie Sanders is a candidate that lives up to my expectations. I had not heard the story about pressure on a bank to give a loan. Are you talking about the thing I with the catholic church that I just found out about from google? That article is from Heat Street, which, according to Inquisitr, is owned by News Corp. Fox News is also all over this story, as has been the Daily Caller. Without a more in-depth investigation, I'm going to assume that this is a right wing manufactured scandal. As for Bernie's taxes, yes, he released some of them, which showed that there's no there there. I have seen them. Why do you think this keeps coming up? Do you think he's hiding something?

Anyways, as you said, no politician is perfect. I can't think of anybody that comes closer to disproving your point than Bernie, but I suppose you're right, nonetheless. No one is perfect.

I, unfortunately, agree 98% with the rest of your post. It's a sad state of affairs we've got. The system we have selects for participants who can play by insane rules, and work towards goals that are completely divorced from those that a rational government should have. However, I think you're wrong that you have to play the game to get the power to change the system. The thing that I (and hopefully a whole bunch of voters) have realized over this election cycle is that we already have the power to change the system. We just have to stand up and make it happen, instead of waiting till election day to vote for a candidate who we hope will do it for us. That candidate would have to play by the rules. And that's not how you win a fixed game.

See, money only works as a cudgel in politics when individual voters aren't directly holding their elected officials accountable. If more voters were members of party committees, the platform would necessarily reflect more accurately the will of the electorate; if more people ran in local primaries, there was more choice available to the voters; if there were more citizens in each Congressman's office each day than there were corporate lobbyists, it wouldn't matter how much those lobbyists had given to the Congressman. And as for fundraising, as the Sanders campaign has demonstrated, individual voters actually have more than enough money in their collective pockets to outspend even the most determined political machine.

Wow. I got way off topic on that one. Anyway, thanks for being a rational person and wanting to have a conversation. It's refreshing.

[DesertRat]

92. 5 more days of Republican talking points on a Democratic site. nt

[Wilms]

2. What a mess.

[Demsrule86]

27. You know I read the article and it is meaningless...

It amounts to nothing. June 16th...enjoy while you can.

[Wilms]

70. Is this the "nothing" you are referring to?

Just so you know, this is why a lot of people don't want her in the WH.

You can read ABC’s full blow-by-blow here, but the short version is this: The rest of the International Security Advisory Board was filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress. But the only thing Fernando had to offer the group was, in ABC’s words, “his technological know-how,” which none of his fellow panelists seemed to find all that helpful. Fernando was so out of place, in fact, that one board member told ABC that none of his colleagues could figure out why he was even there.

Days after the network started asking questions about Fernando in the summer of 2011, he promptly resigned from the panel citing a need to focus on his business interests. He and the State Department declined to make public a copy of his résumé and refused to field follow-up questions at the time.

[George II]

88. So what is the point? Lots of subjective speculation. But since you said it, looks like....

....even MORE people want her in the White House than don't. And from what we've seen over the last four months, more people want her there than any other democratic candidate.

[Wilms]

97. No speculation required.

Look at the FACTS of the matter. You're OK with that??

[Demsrule86]

122. Supposition and innuendo...and read the last paragraph. nt

[SheilaT]

3. Oh, my.

[Juicy_Bellows]

4. Thank you for the post!

"For liberty, Fernando
Though I never thought that we could lose
There's no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, Fernando"

[reformist2]

6. She's a disaster. I cannot support this. We can wait another four years for our first woman prez.

[justiceischeap]

10. Sure and by then Roe v. Wade will be dismantled

as well as ACA, marriage equality, further erosion of voting rights and we'll have a conservative leaning Supreme Court for a few decades, if not longer.

[jwirr]

94. If our SDs are doing any thinking at all, which I doubt we

do not have to have those disasters. We have been trying to tell all of you that this is what we are risking with her as our nominee.

[senz]

106. Clinton says she can compromise on Roe v. Wade

Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

Again,

During a Fox News town hall on Monday night, Clinton and Sanders were asked about their position on late-term abortions. Sanders' stance was easy to discern: He opposes abortion restrictions, full stop.

Clinton replied, "No—I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions

[swhisper1]

166. right, like that will happen

[justiceischeap]

170. Okay, believe what you will.

But if you don't think this stuff can happen with a stacked court, you need a better understanding of politics relation to the court.

[NCTraveler]

11. You start with "I" and the move to "we".

The "we" should also read "I".

[Demsrule86]

26. You are so foolish

This is it kid, or wait decades for something good...as all will be gone...Here is hoping the BOB enjoy it so much less if they cause it...I still think Hillary can win in spite of you people.

[obamanut2012]

31. lolz you guys!

[840high]

34. I can wait. I will wait.

[Betty Karlson]

39. You and me both.

No more votes for homophobes. Or corporatists. Or status quo. Or all three, whatever the genital composition of that horrid combination.

[athena]

159. That's what they said about GWB.

That four years of GWB wouldn't be so bad, and that staying home on election day would teach the Democratic Party a lesson.

Of course, 9/11 happened, and for the next six years, the Democratic Party, along with the media, moved so far right that it almost became indistinguishable from the Republican Party.

If progressives had not convinced so many of us that Gore was just as bad as Bush, there would have been no Iraq War; hundreds of thousands of innocent people would be alive; the environment would be in much better shape; and ISIS would probably not exist today.

[unc70]

7. His specialty - high frequency trading - could benefit from insider info

I have no information that he ever benefitted from insider information in his profession doing high frequency trading of financial instruments. But it is a really strange group for him to be appointed. Why was he and at whose direction?

[senz]

107. He contributed $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

I suppose insider information could help in that regard.

Hillary appointed him. Who knows why?

[Octafish]

8. Technological Know How

$$$$ USA .... > .....$$$$ Switzerland

[Ferd Berfel]

9. So fucking corrupt

Regardless of who wins now, we (the 99%) are screwed



The Hillarians can posture all they want. The Reich will be using all of this crap, and more. PReventing democrats here from commenting on the corrupt shit won't even slow it down. It wil simply allow some to stick their heads in the sand, pretend it isn't happening, and point and shout 'tin foil hats' over there.

But the media likes this shit and will not let up.

good fucking luck

[arikara]

61. This kind of stuff is really disturbing and there is so much of it

Her supporters have to know at some level that it isn't all just made up.

[Ferd Berfel]

62. unfortunately I can't agree

with you on this one.

Look at the denial that average republicans have been deeply entrenched in for decades - suicidal levels.

Hillarians are just the same.

[ohheckyeah]

74. How old are you - 5? Obviously it's not just Trump that has to make up silly

And childish names.

[samson212]

81. Do you mean "hillarians"?

Not sure how that's silly or childish, much less insulting. Weird post.

[AzDar]

12. ...

[NurseJackie]

13. There, there, now. Let it all out.

PS: This shit stops on the 16th.

[NWCorona]

14. Do I really seem upset to you?

Also, what rules does this article break?

[NurseJackie]

15. You'll find out in due time.

Enjoy it while you can.

[NWCorona]

17. I guess we will.

[NurseJackie]

18. Indeed.

[Demsrule86]

25. All of them

You think you can post attack article but you can't and will soon find out. This is a Democratic website...head over to Jack sprat or whatever it is called.

[NWCorona]

29. So any article that covers a wrong doing by Hillary is an attack piece?

Even if it's by a mainstream news agency?

[Demsrule86]

30. Yes-We support our nominee...and this is a bullshit article.

It ends with saying she did nothing wrong...did you read it.

[swhisper1]

163. It is not bs, it is a serious security matter- another security infraction

I wonder how often donors got inside exposure(foreign donors donate for a reason, not charity)

[DesertRat]

93. How about an mainstream news article covering a wrong by

Jane or Bernie Sanders? Would that be considered an attack piece?

[NWCorona]

99. Nope! Check those threads here. You don't see me crying uncle in them.

[Demsrule86]

120. Absolutely...bashing the nominee is pointless and stupid. nt

[swhisper1]

164. exposing a person who is not yet the nominee makes absolute sense, and if she

were already in the WH, exposing her would be for the good of the country and the VP.

[Dustlawyer]

154. DU will all be the Hillary Clinton Group.

I got banned from that without even knowing I was responding to something on it. I don't think I will give them the satisfaction. Objectivity is out the window!

[Lazy Daisy]

108. That means ALL Democrats right?

So all the attack threads for ANY and ALL Democrats won't be allowed?

Lots of people around here better remember that.

[Demsrule86]

121. I don't think you should attack Democrats...let the GOP do that.

However, I am specifically talking about posting shit from any source that attacks the Democratic nominee...and it is pretty clear, you all intend to post shit for 'discussion' from more mainstream sites than you usually do...Skinner is not stupid. He/she will see right through this. There are sites where you can dump on Hillary all day...don't see the point since you all are such fine upstanding Democrats and all but...hey it is a free country and if you really want to help elect Trump...I can't stop you,but don't do it here.

[Lazy Daisy]

142. Back off the "You" stuff

Personal attacks aren't allowed here either.

My point was ALL democrats aren't to be attacked, i.e. Nina Turner posts here lately. The things said about her are shameful.

[-none]

158. So, if someone here brings up Debbie Wasserman Schultz campaigning for Republicans, when Democrats

are running in the same race, that will be forbidden?
If that is the case, DU will become a fact free web site.

[tallahasseedem]

19. +1

[840high]

35. Your shit begins in November.

[Bobbie Jo]

190. What does that even mean?

Explain, if you can.

[tex-wyo-dem]

58. What shit is that?

Reality?

[chwaliszewski]

80. On June 16th, you take take your fingers out of your ears.

Trump is an evil idiot; there's no denying that. But Hillary is flawed, seriously flawed. I promise you, she talks a good game but in her first year she will be all about setting up people who helped her get elected. Cronyism maximus. She will also be all about retribution; she has a revenge list that has been in her clutches ever since some of her backers changed their allegiance from her to Obama over 8 years ago. Then, of course, there's the whole Bill back in the White House worry.

If there's any buyer's remorse years from now when we're bombing more countries and capitulating to the Republicans, I won't be listening.

[NurseJackie]

95. I look forward to your efforts in defeating Trump. Haranguing about how "flawed, seriously flawed"…

... you think she is at every fucking opportunity you have isn't helping. (But I think you know that... so it makes me question your true motives.)

Do you want to defeat Trump, or are you more interested in (and hoping for?) doing everything possible that will allow you to boast "told you so" ... which is it? I hope it's the former rather than the latter. Unfortunately, your actions and words indicate otherwise.



Hillary is our party's nominee. Deal with it and help to defeat Trump.

[chwaliszewski]

119. My actions were to nominate the candidate who has the best chance to defeat Trump, IMO.

That would be Bernie. As far as 'dealing with it'? No, I don't have to deal with it. I am an independent voter, always have been. I joined DU 10 years ago because I detested the Republicans in power. I'm now at a point where I don't see much difference between the two candidates' integrity. If I cannot be swayed to hold my nose and just vote for the person who is running against Trump (whom I'd never vote for, not even to spite Hillary), then I guess you'll have to deal with that. Good day.

[Demsrule86]

124. The ship has sailed Bernie will not be the nominee

so time to face reality. And bashing Clinton in order to help Trump because you are angry and bitter is a terrible thing to do.

[chwaliszewski]

139. Bashing Clinton to help Trump?

What planet are you living on? I'm not here to help Trump. This is starting to sound like the whole "You're either with us or with them' garbage. I'm not bashing Clinton, she's bashing herself. Bernie has done some things that have pissed me off so I can assure you I'm not wearing blinders.

[NurseJackie]

137. That fight is over. Cope.

[chwaliszewski]

140. Nope.

[NurseJackie]

141. Enjoy it while it lasts. Just a few days remain.

[chwaliszewski]

143. And then your bubblesphere will be closed. Got it.

That does not take away the fact that I don't trust Hillary one bit and will not be voting for her.

[NurseJackie]

145. Vote or don't vote ... Do as you please. But...

...your free reign here is coming to an end very soon. June 16th = NEW RULES

[chwaliszewski]

146. Is there anything about Hillary you don't like or wish she would change?

[NurseJackie]

148. Your games bore me. Tick tock...

...time's almost up.

[chwaliszewski]

160. Ditto. Welcome to ignore.

[NurseJackie]

169. There's just one more thing I'd like to say...

...if you're still there.

[amborin]

21. Didn't see your post! This is just tip of iceberg; imagine the emails that are not being released u

until after November

[NWCorona]

22. The problem for Hillary is the fact that this has crossed over to the mainstream media.

This isn't fringe blogs or RW sites anymore.

[amborin]

37. here's a scary one: emails show approved drone strikes with cell phone:

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/fbi_criminal_investigation_emails_clinton_approved_cia_drone_assassinations_with_her_cellphone_report_says/

[Lord Magus]

68. Oh no not a cell phone! -nt-

[Lord Magus]

67. The mainstream media has always been happy to uncritically report BS from fring RW sites. -nt-

[Demsrule86]

125. It has been everywhere and it is still right wing Bull shit that is going nowhere.

[Demsrule86]

23. Five days of this shites. Enjoy yourself while you can.

Consider that Hillary is the nominee...Bernie is out...and realize when you post shite like this, you are on Trump's team.

[840high]

36. She is the guilty one in this. So much baggage.

[Demsrule86]

123. She is the nominee so tough luck.

[840high]

133. Yes it is tough luck

for a lot of us and our country. You don't care. I do.

[tex-wyo-dem]

59. Y'all use the same stupid fucking talking points...

How is that?

[840high]

134. Yes - I've noticed.

[randome]

24. Once more, basic journalism questions are never even asked.

1. Who are the other members of the IAB?
2. Are all of them well-versed in nuclear science or do they represent a wide range of experience?
3. What are their salaries?

So far, all I can find is a list of current members. http://www.state.gov/t/avc/isab/c27632.htm

But it looks like this answers both #1 and #2. The answer to #2 is: yes, they represent a wide range of experience. Which makes the article's declaration that they are all nuclear scientists nonsense.

With that in mind, #3 seems less important.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[samson212]

79. Nice misdirection

Which of the people on the list you linked don't seem to have relevant experience? To me, it seems that they all have relevant experience, either in science or foreign relations. Yes, they certainly represent a wide range of experience, all of which seems, to me, totally relevant. Were you hoping no one would click the link?

[randome]

90. A hedge fund manager? The President of Ploughshares Fund?

A former Congressman from Nebraska? As I stated before, these non-scientists may have been grudgingly admitted but Fernando was considered one too many.

The article makes the specific straw-man implication that scientists are part of the board but I don't see a scientist in the bunch. A lot of former defense analysts, etc.

Big. Deal.
[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]

[samson212]

100. Really? OK, I'll do the due diligence for those readers who will just take you at your word.

A former Congressman from Nebraska is definitely covered by "filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress…"

You're being extremely misleading. I'll go one by one, if that helps.

• Hon. Gary Hart: was the chairman of the Threat Reduction Advisory Council.


• Hon. Charles B. Curtis: this one's easy. He was "Senior Advisor to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, President Emeritus of the Nuclear Threat Initiative and former Deputy Secretary of Energy". I don't think I need to provide links for those.


• Hon. Graham Allison: "Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs ... at the Kennedy School of Government"


• Amb. Brooke D. Anderson: "served ... on the Iran Nuclear Negotiations"


• Hon. Douglas Bereuter: former Republican Congressman from Nebraska (I guess Nebraska congressmen don't count as congressmen?)


• Dr. Bruce Blair: a professor (oh look, a scientist!) and co-founder of Global Zero, an organization devoted to bringing about a "world without nuclear weapons". According to Wikipedia, he is a "nuclear security expert and a research scholar at the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs"


• Amb. Linton F. Brooks: a researcher (ooh, another scientist) and advisor "on national security issues", who worked on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (link included in case you've never heard of it)


• BGen Stephen A. Cheney: among other things, former "Deputy Executive Secretary to the Secretary of Defense, and Inspector General of the Marine Corps". Seems like he might have relevant experience to me, though perhaps you'd like to research this one a little more.


• Mr. Joseph Cirincione: this is one of the ones you were disdainful about. He's the president of the Ploughshares Fund. If you had googled it, you'd see that it's pretty relevant. Their landing page says, "Ploughshares Fund supports the smartest minds and most effective organizations to reduce nuclear stockpiles, prevent new nuclear states, and increase global security." I wonder if running an organization like that gives him some useful experience and perspective?


• ...

There are quite a few more, but I'm bored now. I guess it's clear that you actually read the whole list and then decided to misrepresent it, since you referenced the only hedge fund manager, Robert 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". I'll concede that he seems out of place. I wonder if he had a similar deal with somebody in Clinton's administration, or if it was someone previous to her. Actually, it's possible that he's a new addition, since this is the list of current members.

If you'd like to look through the rest of that list and point out the members that you think are comparable in terms of irrelevance to a securities trader, I will gladly discuss it with you. If not, I'll assume you're just being intentionally misleading and we can leave it at that.

[senz]

109. Thank you.

[randome]

111. You're right, I didn't Google everyone on the list. You did. So...no misleading from me.

Referring to the list we're talking about, it does not have all that information in it so, in a way, you are being misleading about me being misleading. But thanks for the additional detail.

But not everyone on that list fits into the 3 categories specified by the article. And since the position is unpaid and voluntary, it hardly seems like any kind of 'quid pro quo', as the article wants us to believe.

It was some sort of political or personnel screw-up and...where is the harm?
[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]

[pottedplant]

144. Robert rose....more than a hedge fund manager

https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertnrose

Yeah just an innocent screw up. A trader couldn't possibly benefit from sitting on a board where future plans are discussed. He would never take advantage of anything he heard. It was all a whacky fuckup!!! Rich folks just fall into such things don't they?

[samson212]

149. Huh! Thanks for the info!

Looks like Mr. Fernando was the only one without qualifications. Also, the whole thing stinks to high hell regardless.

[creeksneakers2]

152. He had qualifications

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/11/conservative-media-run-faulty-abc-report-allege-hillary-clinton-sold-seat-intelligence-advisory/210871

[pottedplant]

174. Brock forgot to add these links

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/10/how_clinton_donor_rajiv_fernando_got_a_job_as_a_nuclear_expert_he_wasn_t.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/index.html

Funny how New York post is ok when it skewers sanders but a rw rag when it criticizes herself.

[samson212]

150. OK, we're too far down the rabbit hole for my taste.

I really didn't mean to be misleading. You posted a list of people who are on the IAB, and I felt you misrepresented the composition. I didn't Google everyone on the list either, though I think you probably should have done that work in the first place, before trying to back up obviously false conclusions.

I feel it's apparent that there is impropriety here, but I guess I'm not gonna be able to convince you. As for quid pro quo, it's very difficult in a case like this (as is mentioned in the OP and the linked article) to demonstrate that an exchange took place. However, it's pretty clear that Mr. Fernando stood to benefit from access and information, and didn't have the qualifications to sit on the board. You can take that however you like.

PS. "you are being misleading about me being misleading", based on my doing further research, is some serious olympic-level mental gymnastics. I give it an 8.7.

[hr]
[div style="text-align:center; color:blue; font-weight: bold"]You are wrong. You should admit it.[br]Then you'll be right about having been wrong.
[hr]

[Demsrule86]

28. More BS from the Bernie of Bust crowd...June 16th can't come soon enough.

"So just how big of a deal is this? In the big bucket of Clinton controversies (both real and imagined), this is merely a drop. Hillary and her staff had broad leeway to name pretty much whomever they wanted to the board, so while tapping Fernando was highly questionable, it wasn’t illegal. It is impossible to read the ABC report and not get a distinct whiff of favor trading, but there is no smoking gun—as there almost never is when it comes to this type of thing. In a political system where the inputs and outputs are both money and power, proof of guilt, or, really, innocence, rarely exists. "

[NWCorona]

33. Did I say it was illegal? It's hard to get busted when you right the laws.

[mcar]

32. Sigh

6 days.

[Miles Archer]

65. Not really.

Clinton bashing comes to an end in 6 days.

This article is not Clinton bashing.

Sigh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=5833

What to expect

I think a lot of people have the wrong idea, and are going to be disappointed.

We have no intention of purging anyone, and we have no intention of disallowing good-faith discussion of the issues. I think most people are going to be fine with that. But there are going to be a a few people (including both Hillary and Bernie supporters) who are going to be disappointed because the massive crackdown they have been hoping for does not come to pass.

Most people think the big change coming in general election season is that people on this website will need to stop bashing Hillary Clinton. Yes, that's part of it -- but it's not the only thing and it's definitely not the most important thing. The really big change coming in general election season is that people on this website will need to stop bashing each other.

Throughout this primary season we have been in a death spiral of declining standards. So we are going to institute some rules, and we will expect everyone to follow those rules, and we will expect everyone to enforce those rules when they serve on juries. The rules shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone -- they are mostly common sense, and they are basically the same rules we had for years when we had moderators: No personal attacks, no broad-brush group attacks, no bigotry, no right-wing smears or sources against Democrats, no advocating for spoilers or republicans, no meta-discussion, etc.

I am just so tired of people bashing each other and bashing Democrats on this website. I know the hardcore partisans will try to paint this whole thing through the Hillary vs Bernie lens, and drive that wedge as hard as they can, but that is just so not where I am at right now. I don't care who anyone has supported in the primaries -- I really don't. As long as you treat your fellow DU members with respect, stop tearing down Democratic public figures (including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and everyone else), and don't advocate for Donald Trump or some lost-cause third-party spoiler candidate, then you'll be fine.

[Major Hogwash]

38. Bookmarked.

For the day when Attorney General Loretta Lynch cries out "Bingo!"

[tex-wyo-dem]

60. ..

👍

[chascarrillo]

40. Heckuva job, Hillary

[JoePhilly]

41. The search for new outrages continues.

[NWCorona]

47. Search? It comes freely to us. No searching needed.

[JoePhilly]

71. True ...

... the perpetually outraged don't need a reason.

[Demsrule86]

127. The right wing is always willing to oblige fellow travelers

Trump has invited you to join him, and it appears many here have.

[840high]

135. rw rw rw rw polly want a cracker?

[workinclasszero]

42. Thursday, June 16th

[pinebox]

43. The Clinton's are always in the center of bullshit

and all it does is hurt things.

This is a prime example of things.

How in the blue hell did Rajiv Fernando, a wealthy Clinton donor, get on the damn board of the International Security Advisory Board? Look, this screams corruption through & through you guys. I don't give a crap what anybody says but this is very wrong.

Each and every day it's something.

Have fun with THAT in November.

[randome]

44. The board is an unpaid, volunteer position.

It includes a wide range of people with different skillsets. So where do you get 'corruption' from?
[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]

[NWCorona]

48. This guy's skill set wasn't applicable to the board he was appointed to.

[randome]

49. Few of the members on the board have nuclear science credentials.

http://www.state.gov/t/avc/isab/c27632.htm

It is, as I said, composed of a wide range of talent. They aren't conducting fallout tests in a boardroom. I actually don't understand why there was any controversy in the first place since many of the board members have similar non-nuclear credentials.
[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]

[NWCorona]

50. Did any of them have to resign less than 48hrs after their credentials were questioned?

[randome]

51. I don't understand why that occurred. Obviously something was 'wrong' about the appointment.

It doesn't make sense -to me- to say he was unqualified since many of the other members were similarly unqualified. I mean, there's a hedge fund manager on the board so what's that about?

I think the article is missing something to fully explain why he resigned. It leans a bit too much on innuendo. For instance, stating that the rest of the board "...was filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress..." isn't really true since other members had resumes very different from those 3 categories.
[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]

[NWCorona]

55. Point taken

[samson212]

82. Follow that link before making any claims about it!

As I said here, most of the people on that list do have relevant experience. Many are directly involved in defense or even nuclear science. None are traders or similar. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

[randome]

89. A hedge fund manager has relevant experience?

A former Congressman from Nebraska? The President of Ploughshares Fund?

Some seem to have relevant experience, others do not. But the statement from the article that the rest of the board "...was filled with nuclear scientists, past Cabinet secretaries, and former members of Congress..." isn't really true, is it?

Unless you want to dispute the meaning of the words "was filled".

Clearly some non-relevant experience is allowed but probably grudgingly and trying to add Fernando to what was already there was likely considered going too far.

But it's an unpaid, advisory position so the implication that some kind of 'payback' was going on seems ludicrous. That combined with the false statement above makes me give little credence to the article.
[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]

[samson212]

101. Just stop. You're hurting the truth.

I'll just leave this here.

[NWCorona]

54. No it isn't just my opinion. ABC tried to get that answer and alarm bells went of at State Dept.

[annavictorious]

77. You're right about the "bullshit" part.

Speaking of bullshit, last week the bros were decrying CNN and the WSJ as being the corrupt corporate media in the tank for Clinton. This week, they're the purveyors of solid journalism taken as gospel truth.

Aren't you dizzy from all that spinning?

[Miles Archer]

102. Speaking of bullshit...

...Sanders bashing...including bashing his supporters...ends on the 16th too. Don't believe me? Let's take a little peek:

DU General Election Season Begins on June 16: What You Need To Know

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=6548

Me: So "BernieBros" and "BoB" meets a welcome demise on the 16th. Thank you.

Skinner's response: Yes, disrespectful nicknames are not permitted. (nt)

[senz]

110. Thanks for that, Miles.

Bernie's female supporters, and I believe we are the majority here, have become rather tired of being called "bro" by Hillary's female supporters.

[840high]

136. Thank you.

[think]

45. He was so qualified he resigned after a few days. Hillary knows how to pick them....

[msanthrope]

46. Please edit to conform to the TOS. nt

[dchill]

56. "Clinton is so fortunate..."

As are we all.

[LuvLoogie]

63. I heard she puts ketchup on her hotdogs.

[HumanityExperiment]

64. Story is growing legs...

Question for HRC supporters here, this adds to her historic unfavorables, time to turn this around

Should HRC and her family divest themselves from Clinton Foundation?

&t=3m30s

[Lord Magus]

66. The hell it does. Couldn't have less "legs."

And why on Earth should they "divest themselves from Clinton Foundation?"

[HumanityExperiment]

69. pay to play...

speaks to leadership

speaks to influence of $$

this all leads into increasing HRC historic unfavorables, if you choose to ignore or dismiss this you're part of the problem, not working to decrease HRC's unfavorables

[Demsrule86]

128. No, Great charity.

Helping the GOP attack the Democratic nominee is shameful.

[HumanityExperiment]

131. principle

when did standing for principle become 'shameful' in DEM party?

the only 'shame' I'm witnessing is attempting to suppress debate on principle regardless of candidate

I assumed DU after the 15th would be bad, would try to insulate the nominee from constructive criticism but what I see going on will be far worse than what I expected

[SCantiGOP]

72. Isn't it time to stop this kind of OP?

Needs to be soon.

[jillan]

73. Trump is in heaven over this story. I see him on CNN talking about this. So to answer your question

the OP will stop but the story will not.

[okasha]

75. Next Thursday.

They're just trying to trash the place as they're shown the door.

[senz]

112. lol, legitimate news about Hillary is "trash?"

[okasha]

115. If you ever post any legitimate news about Hillary,

I'll give it my attention.

[swhisper1]

167. no, valid discussion is always educational

unlike some posts that cheer the bookburning

[riversedge]

78. 5 and half days and there will be no more posting VILE right wing crap on this board. Shame on you.

[Miles Archer]

84. 5 and half days and there will be no more meta discussion on this board.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125910708

what is meta discussion

Discussion about the discussion. Or about DU. It's when people stop talking about politics and instead talk about who broke what rule and who should be banned and all that other navel-gazing stuff.

The Jury System: What's staying the same and what's changing

Next, we have made technical changes to the Jury process, implementing various improvements that people have requested over the past five years, and adding a few of our own. We also ditched a number of things that we felt were not working. With all of these changes our focus was on looking for ways to increase civility, set clear expectations, and reduce forum drama and meta-discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=6548

[pottedplant]

85. How is this right wing?

Defend what she did. Show me just how qualified Fernando was. Better yet link to herself being transparent and clearing up any misconceptions about her involvement in placing a commodities trader slash huge donor on a panel dealing w national secutity and nukes. What was fernando's reaction when he was confronted by a veteran abc journalist? Oh yeah, he threatened to have him arrested. A real standup guy who is representing democrats as a super delegate. A joke.

[Demsrule86]

126. It doesn't matter

Bernie has lost, and she is the nominee. Thus, she has to defeat Trump...and bashing her with right wing bull shit talking points only helps Trump...it is disgusting.

[creeksneakers2]

155. Defense

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/11/conservative-media-run-faulty-abc-report-allege-hillary-clinton-sold-seat-intelligence-advisory/210871

[pottedplant]

173. Brock?

Are you serious? Show me something independent that absolves her. Also all these accolades and his association with a security panel all took place AFTER he got busted. Too funny. Called cya and reputation management.

[pottedplant]

175. See #174

[senz]

113. Too bad you can't stop the media from reporting news about Hill.

[swhisper1]

168. its just the first chapter of her defrocking. RICO is in her driveway

[pnwmom]

91. Oh yes, a "plum" spot on a board that doesn't pay anything. n/t

[pottedplant]

103. It's inside information

Or has that escaped you.

[Midwestern Democrat]

116. He was a big donor who wanted to play "Policy Big Shot" by sitting on a prestigious board as a peer

to the likes of Brent Scowcroft, William Perry, David Kay, etc and evidently someone was oafish enough to think that people at that level - who are donating their time and expertise free of charge in the name of public service - would be willing to be used as props to grease a donor.

[kstewart33]

96. The time to post every alleged Clinton scandal that man has ever invented, is over.

Hillary kicks dogs. She spits in other people's iced tea when they're not looking. She can't stand kids. She dresses in burlap sacks.

This is getting so old.

The only thing standing between this country and President Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton. You may loathe her and think she is the worst human being to ever walk the earth, but that really does not matter at this point.

What matters is making sure she beats Trump. Because if she does not, heaven help this country.

[senz]

114. So all she has going for her is Trump?

[Demsrule86]

129. Exactly right...the primary is over. nt

[John Poet]

172. The Clinton scandals were "getting old" in fucking 1993.

That's why so many of us didn't want to have to live through a re-run of them.

[Miles Archer]

183. So she beats Trump, and we have her, but a lot of people want more.

And yes, I read your "scandals" post, which is basically a retread of your "Hillary kicks dogs. She spits in other people's iced tea when they're not looking. She can't stand kids. She dresses in burlap sacks" comment above.

It's not getting "so old" for some people.

And I do understand that injecting a sense of fatigue and sarcasm into the conversation might seem like a way to shut down the conversation, but it's not. The "new rules" on DU that go "live" on the 16th will go a long way toward that goal, perhaps end the conversation completely, and that will effectively end it on DU but nowhere else.

You say "You may loathe her and think she is the worst human being to ever walk the earth"...more bitter sarcasm, more fatigue. Truth is, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I do not "loathe" her. I do not think that "she is the worst human being to ever walk the earth." But then you cap it off with "but that really does not matter at this point." You actually said that...in your belief system, what other people think "really does not matter." It's coming across loud and clear in your posts, and it is your right to feel that way...I am not attacking you or trying to take that right away from you.

I am, instead, encouraging you to take a step outside of yourself for a moment and have an appreciation for your telling other people that their opinion "really does not matter."

I don't know you. I don't know what motivates you, how you think, all I know is that I do understand "words" and how they are used. The sarcasm, strictly from what i see in your posts, appears to be used in a way to marginalize concerns that people have about Hillary Clinton, to make them somehow seem foolish or petty or devoid of any value past their "hatred" of her.

It's just not that easy. You can't just wrap everyone who is not "on board" with Clinton into a neat little package, tie it off with a pretty bow, and write them off as "haters" or "dissenters." You can attempt to do that, and you can feel that you are "right" or "vindicated" or whatever these kinds of posts make you feel, but you've solved nothing.

Maybe I've pissed you off at this point. Maybe I did it a few paragraphs ago. And that was not my intent. If I wanted to flip your "off" switch, I could have simply tossed you onto my ignore list. I didn't do that. I'm trying to communicate with you and let you know what comes across on the screen when you craft this kind of message.

I have no doubt whatsoever that there are people on this site, right now, who are "all in" for Trump. That's nothing new. We went through it during Bush v. Kerry, Obama v. McCain, and Obama v. Romney. They come, they go, they aren't DU.

Some of the people who have been around here that long, as well as some of the new people who have joined during this election cycle, are "real" Democrats. In this election, that term has become vague at best. If a person is 100% behind the DNC, Wassserman Shultz, and Clinton, does that make them a "real" Democrat? If they are critics of all three, does that make them "not real?"

In my opinion...and this is just my opinion...on the list of whatever accomplishments people believe Sanders did or did not achieve during the primaries, he accomplished one core feat...he splintered off the Democrats who believe themselves to be "true progressives" from the people who believe that Clinton is "progressive." I don't believe she is. I'm not going to throw more "right wing talking points" at you. Am I concerned about Goldman Sachs and her relationship with "the big banks?" Better believe it. Am I concerned about her stance on war, and do I believe that she will not only keep us mired in the wars we are in now and send us into new ones? Yes, I do. And you have the right to dismiss me with comments about how I hate her and how I think she dresses in burlap sacks, but...even though I do not know you...I want to believe that you are smarter than that, better than that, and when you use those words it is the voice of frustration and not of reason.

On the 16th, you'll get your wish...on DU, and nowhere else...the conversation will shrink dramatically, and whether it actually rises back to the level of a civil "conversation" or simply becomes an exchange of thoughts between very like-minded individuals, I can't tell you.

People have legitimate concerns about your candidate of choice. If I do vote for her in November, it will be for no other reason than to cast a vote against Trump. Is that "enough" for me? No, it's not, and it's the best I'm going to get out of this equation, and it's the best a lot of people are going to get out of it. You can paint a picture of these people as clueless, ignorant, not "real" Democrats, whatever you'd like. It won't reflect reality. It will make you "feel right," and if that's enough for you, I guess that it's enough for you, and it will provide closure for you.

You can alienate and dismiss the people who disagree with you, or you can make an attempt to understand why they do. So far I'm seeing the first option in your posts, and not the second, and that is your right.

I think we deserve better, and I think you deserve better. I'm not talking about a "better candidate." I'm talking about a better level of discourse. And if this is what you want, you already have it, and I have nothing left that I can say to you that will make you see things differently. All I can do is wish you luck.

[TheDebbieDee]

104. This guy/donor, Rajiv Fernando was some kind of financial whiz, right?

Terrorists need financing, too, don't they? Maybe this guy was following money trails or tracking investment strategies to figure out where terrorist groups were investing their money - or which investors were funneling money to terrorists...

Maybe when they started asking questions about Mr. Fernando, he figured he couldn't track money/terrorists without a lot of attention. Maybe some other finance whiz took his place? Anything is possible...

[pottedplant]

105. You are being sarcastic, right?

Did you read the article? All the other members were asking who he was and why he was there. Plus old Fernando could've answered Brian Ross's question without acting like the jackass he is and threatening arrest. Moreover, if they wanted to know how terrorist financing works they could have appointed someone from hsbc. That's their business.

[TheDebbieDee]

117. Nope. I always try to deduce another reason to explain a situation.

I have an active imagination....

And I'm not concerned that Hillary engaged in suspected cronyism in 2011 either.

[pottedplant]

118. that's really pathetic

And you might want to read up on the foundation. It didn't end in 2011. https://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

[TheDebbieDee]

188. No, you read up on it. In fact, make it your Bible....

I'm a realist - I don't expect politicians or leaders to be infallible. They are people and they have lapses in judgement, too. But I don't think Hillary is going to use the nuclear football because somebody hurt her feewiiiiiings....

[pottedplant]

193. You set a very low bar

This was no mistake. The Iraq war vote was no mistake. Regime change in Libya was no mistake. Legitimizing the Honduran coup was no mistake. Setting up an office to promote fracking worldwide was no mistake. Hiding your email from public records requests was no mistake. Shall I continue?

[TheDebbieDee]

198. You just don't get it, do you? I don't care what she may have done,

what's being speculated, what's being investigated - I DON'T WANT TRUMP for President and that's that!

[NanceGreggs]

130. New so-called "Hillary scandal" ...

... checks all the boxes on the RW talking points bingo card.

[LenaBaby61]

182. Is Benghazi still checked too?

Yeah or Naw?

[NWCorona]

185. Does that make it easier to deal with this story?

There's a reason this guy resigned with the quickness.

[Barack_America]

132. Not good.

[peace13]

153. Love the Hill post that can't wait for us to go.

They can swim in denial as we float down the river of fire! Life is about to get very complicated for all!

[underthematrix]

157. This is nothing. I imagine he was added because he had a relationship with someone on the council

that would feel comfortable with him on the council. it sounds like power broker relationship stuff which happens all the time.

Remember Halliburton and one of their officers Dick Cheney?

Or Snowden who was hired by an NSA contractor even though he was unqualified and not properly vetted. Of course he turned out to be a Russian spy

[pottedplant]

177. Now you're just making shit up.

[swhisper1]

161. I'm sure Fernando was one of many pay to play

[stonecutter357]

176. tick tock..

[NWCorona]

179. I'm not worried at all

[stonecutter357]

180. 4 days and counting...

[NWCorona]

181. Like I said I'll be fine.

[senz]

184. Until you go into your darkness.

[workinclasszero]

191. 4 days until RW lies and propaganda are banned from DU

I can't wait!

[NWCorona]

192. Gotta love the thought police

[workinclasszero]

194. Taking out all the right wing trash that would fit right in at Freak Republic

is just house cleaning at a democratic discussion board.

YMMV

[NWCorona]

195. So CNN, ABC, NBC are RW trash now?

Or is it the fact that they are covering something negative about Hillary that of course the RW would cover as well?

[workinclasszero]

196. You will find out in 4 days I guess

[NWCorona]

197. That we will!

[Fast Walker 52]

200. I hope this doesn't get me into trouble but I only heard about this case today

I'm wondering if there's been any update on this case?

I haven't heard anything about it before today and googled around but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. Nonetheless, it actually seems to be one of the more solid cases of Clinton donor influence trading.