Clinton donor received top spot on State Department intel board

[Goosey 3,017]

"It's what's wrong with politics today."

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

7 hours ago, Bebe said:

I wasn't claiming he was a college student so lets not

Really? I couldn't tell based on your arguments. You're trying to imply that someone cannot possibly be accepted into an advisory role unless they have dozens of years of experience under their belt. Tell that to my consultant friends who jumped in after graduation.

Wrote this at the end but I want to highlight it now:

Feel free to make your opinions, just stop stating your own conclusions as assumptions and facts. That's what irritates me. That's when you see me posting essays in response.

I couldn't care less what you think about anyone. The way you are so eager to cast your own version of the truth on a set of data and speak about it so confidently is EXACTLY what pisses me off. 

If you look at everything I've said, it contains doubt with leeway for me being wrong.

That's exactly how we differ. I'm not so confident to cast my own version of the truth on anything unless I see sufficient evidence. All I've done was provide alternate reasons for why things may have gone down, ones you dismiss quite readily. 

Now let's get back to the argument itself:

7 hours ago, Bebe said:

You are undermining the importance of this role. The International Security Advisory Board (ISAB), a group which oversees US nuclear and security policies. The members of ISAB have top-secret clearances commensurate with their expertise in these fields. The fact that this is an "unpaid role" means nothing and it's a little embarrassing that you would mention it as if it is relevant. It's a sensitive government intelligence advisory board. A seat on that board not only allows you to have advanced knowledge on all U.S foreign policy, but allows you to directly shape it. That's something that could be very useful to somebody who is head of a high frequency trading company....

The literal description the government gives for the ISAB is "The Board provides its recommendations to the Secretary of State. Board members are national security experts with scientific, military, diplomatic, and political backgrounds." He has no scientific, military, diplomatic or political background (unless you consider his giant donations to Clinton and the democratic party as political experience). It's absolutely a pretty high position. 

 

Here...look at the description at the government website itself:

http://www.state.gov/t/avc/isab/charter/

"Pursuant to P.L. 105-277 (as codified at 22 USC § 2581(f)), the Department of State established the Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) to “advise with and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on United States arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament policies and activities.”

It's an advisory role. One member out of thirty will not be able to "shape" anything especially when you said they may have little comparative experience at the time of hiring. If you think Raj was going to overshadow any of them there...  ... Furthermore, it's up to the discretion of the Secretary of State. 

The duties of the ISAB are advisory only.

"The ISAB will provide the Department of State with a continuing source of independent insight, advice, and innovation on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, and international security and related aspects of public diplomacy. It will avail itself of the resources of all the Department’s bureaus and offices as directed by the Department. At the same time, the Board will seek to make its own resources available to the Department’s bureaus and offices on a cooperative basis on projects of mutual interest.

-----

It's great that you think that having very qualified people somehow disqualifies less qualified ones from being part of the board, especially when those do have something to offer Raj has significant experience in risk management and cybersecurity as well as experience on foreign policy boards, so you assuming he he has no qualifications whatsoever is ridiculous. 

Perhaps he has intimate personal knowledge and Clinton thought he would be a pretty good match in bring in innovative ideas to the table. Who the hell knows?

Although I love how you're trying to establish motive for this by saying he's a CEO of a company so he must be using this for his own benefit. Talk about assuming the worst in someone  

7 hours ago, Bebe said:

Also nobody is claiming that he is a threat to national security  Nobody is claiming he wouldn't have been able to pass a security test.... Nobody is saying he is a national enemy 

So why take offense to this given the consequences are beyond irrelevant? Are you honestly shocked that political machinations exist? 

7 hours ago, Bebe said:

 

What I am saying is that the internal response to the probe is embarrassing. No one could come up with an explanation for Fernando’s appointment, even after two days of trying.

Who didn't say it was embarrassing? It is always embarrassing when such machinations see the light. They're supposed to remain in the dark.

They did give a reason:

"This was an unpaid, volunteer advisory board, and one of several foreign policy-focused organizations that he was involved with. As the State Department itself has said, the ISAB charter calls for a diverse set of experiences for its members. That's all there is to it."

--

Shocking that someone with expertise in risk management and cybersecurity with some experience in foreign policy would be part of that diversity. Looking at their board members, I see that there is plenty of diversity there, including some "simple" politicians, hedge fund donors, etc...

---

Perhaps it's not good enough for you? That's their reason.

Also he didn't quit when "it saw the light of day". 

"Fernando blamed his resignation on the "unique, unexpected, and excessive volatility in the international market these last few weeks" in a letter sent to Clinton on August 17, 2011."

Why would he send a letter to Clinton if he resigned because he was told to leave?  

No you're taking the worst possible scenario and trying to correlate it with what happened. 

7 hours ago, Bebe said:

The best that the combined efforts of State’s legal and executive team could do was to hail Fernando’s “relative youth, enthusiasm, a business perspective, and expertise in cyber security,” a description that would apply to thousands if not millions of mid-level executives in the US.

Well he's not a mid-level executive, but either way, any of them could have probably gotten the job if they wanted it. What are you trying to say here? 

 

7 hours ago, Bebe said:

I'm not claiming that or even trying to imply that  I'm saying that a big donor to Hillary Clinton seems to be getting a lot of incredible political favours and that it seems that people loyal to the establishment get rewarded in some pretty impressive ways.

It's funny how you keep  saying he is a 'friend of Hillary' and she is just giving small favours to her friend
"A friend wanted in on a position that was available." Like... he is a major donor to her... not a friend. A 'friend' aka  a major donor wanted in on a position that was available and you see no problems with her giving this 'friend' favours.

"incredible political favor".

Dude it's a position on an advisory board. This isn't some huge political favor. 

Also there you go tying in "big donor". You're trying to establish some correlation between donations and receiving the job. That's based on circumstantial evidence, nothing more.

What you can reasonably say is that the donor had a positive relationship with Clinton (that's what I meant by friend  ), and yes no **** friends interact with friends and sometimes deals happen.  

Are you trying to imply that donors to charity should never interact with the government?

I trust that you're not trying to say that his 10,000$ donations (chump change) were enough for this position. 

Stop trying to imply that he gave money to her and he got the job, as if there was a direct exchange for it.

Here's the article from Slate summing it up well:

"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."

So go ahead...choose the most negative connotation possible to justify your own conceptions and affirm your own biases about Hillary. I continue to tell you that we don't know what happened and there is an array of potential reasons, but given how little impact this has I don't see the point in giving it any attention.

7 hours ago, Bebe said:

I haven't done any of the sort  I've bitten my tongue and refused 

What does it say about you when you do open your tongue and comment in a display of confirmation bias? Thanks for doing the favor of not commenting before I guess?

7 hours ago, Bebe said:

I've even f*cking said that I support Hillary in the general election against Trump, like at this point what do you even think my agenda would be for criticising Hillary? What would I gain? What would I be trying to convince people to do?

Maybe it's just that I'm a progressive and against crony establishment politics? 

That's great. "My best friend is black so I'm not a racist" teas. Concern troll all you want. I'm not buying it.

Your final statement sums it up. Your agenda is fighting "establishment" politics using Hillary as a scapegoat. You're OK with voting for Hillary but have such a seething hatred of establishment that you wouldn't mind shading her on your way to the voting booth with any morsel tossed your way. Who needs enemies when you have friends like this really?

How naive can you be if you believe that such machinations don't exist and never will irrespective of who is in power? 

Influence and power go hand in hand, and someone is going to use that influence to drive things their way. Considering how little impact this has on anything political, one wonders why you are blowing this particular situation completely out of proportion for your own ends.

I don't even think you understand why I'm even having this discussion with you.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 hours ago, Redstreak said:

As if this is ****ing comparable  

As if anything could be comparable to the evil Queen of Politics.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 hours ago, Adakam said:

next week itll be something like "Hillary caught using toilet paper she didnt pay for"

I can't wait.

[brendablethyn 536]

We can't have this person as President. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

We can't have this person as President. 

And here I thought you were shown the light  

 

[brendablethyn 536]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

And here I thought you were shown the light  

I keep trying to, but then things like this happen 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, brendablethyn said:

I keep trying to, but then things like this happen 

O well if you were going to give up might as well do it now. I'm sure there is probably going to be some deeper  **** coming out in the next few months.  

[brendablethyn 536]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

O well if you were going to give up might as well do it now. I'm sure there is probably going to be some deeper  **** coming out in the next few months.  

Leave Hillary and go to Trump? 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

Leave Hillary and go to Trump? 

Well considering all politicians engage in such machinations, I'd say quit politics entirely if you really dislike this. 

Or you can work to change it, using Hillary as the means to an end.

[brendablethyn 536]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well considering all politicians engage in such machinations, I'd say quit politics entirely if you really dislike this. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

 

All of the politicians have faults. It's up to you to determine whether those faults outweigh all the pluses they bring.

I personally believe Hillary does these things because she feels that she has to play the game. I admire her for taking the heat to get things done.  

Influence is the only way to get people to cooperate. Anyone who claims they can break down the "establishment" and end millennia of human tradition is someone who doesn't understand humanity.

[Bebe 17,289]

55 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Really? I couldn't tell based on your arguments. You're trying to imply that someone cannot possibly be accepted into an advisory role unless they have dozens of years of experience under their belt. Tell that to my consultant friends who jumped in after graduation.

 

Here...look at the description at the government website itself:

http://www.state.gov/t/avc/isab/charter/

"Pursuant to P.L. 105-277 (as codified at 22 USC § 2581(f)), the Department of State established the Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) to “advise with and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on United States arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament policies and activities.”

It's an advisory role. One member out of thirty will not be able to "shape" anything especially when you said they may have little comparative experience at the time of hiring. If you think Raj was going to overshadow any of them there...  ... Furthermore, it's up to the discretion of the Secretary of State. 

The duties of the ISAB are advisory only.

"The ISAB will provide the Department of State with a continuing source of independent insight, advice, and innovation on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, and international security and related aspects of public diplomacy. It will avail itself of the resources of all the Department’s bureaus and offices as directed by the Department. At the same time, the Board will seek to make its own resources available to the Department’s bureaus and offices on a cooperative basis on projects of mutual interest.

-----

It's great that you think that having very qualified people somehow disqualifies less qualified ones from being part of the board, especially when those do have something to offer Raj has significant experience in risk management and cybersecurity as well as experience on foreign policy boards, so you assuming he he has no qualifications whatsoever is ridiculous. 

Although I love how you're trying to establish motive for this by saying he's a CEO of a company so he must be using this for his own benefit. Talk about assuming the worst in someone  

So why take offense to this given the consequences are beyond irrelevant? Are you honestly shocked that political machinations exist? 

Who didn't say it was embarrassing? It is always embarrassing when such machinations see the light. They're supposed to remain in the dark.

They did give a reason:

"This was an unpaid, volunteer advisory board, and one of several foreign policy-focused organizations that he was involved with. As the State Department itself has said, the ISAB charter calls for a diverse set of experiences for its members. That's all there is to it."

--

Shocking that someone with expertise in risk management and cybersecurity with some experience in foreign policy would be part of that diversity. Looking at their board members, I see that there is plenty of diversity there, including some "simple" politicians, hedge fund donors, etc...

---

Perhaps it's not good enough for you? That's their reason.

Also he didn't quit when "it saw the light of day". 

"Fernando blamed his resignation on the "unique, unexpected, and excessive volatility in the international market these last few weeks" in a letter sent to Clinton on August 17, 2011."

Why would he send a letter to Clinton if he resigned because he was told to leave?  

No you're taking the worst possible scenario and trying to correlate it with what happened. 

Well he's not a mid-level executive, but either way, any of them could have probably gotten the job if they wanted it. What are you trying to say here? 

 

"incredible political favor".

Dude it's a position on an advisory board. This isn't some huge political favor. 

Also there you go tying in "big donor". You're trying to establish some correlation between donations and receiving the job. That's based on circumstantial evidence, nothing more.

What you can reasonably say is that the donor had a positive relationship with Clinton (that's what I meant by friend  ), and yes no **** friends interact with friends and sometimes deals happen.  

Are you trying to imply that donors to charity should never interact with the government?

I trust that you're not trying to say that his 10,000$ donations (chump change) were enough for this position. 

Stop trying to imply that he gave money to her and he got the job, as if there was a direct exchange for it.

Here's the article from Slate summing it up well:

"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."

So go ahead...choose the most negative connotation possible to justify your own conceptions and affirm your own biases about Hillary. I continue to tell you that we don't know what happened and there is an array of potential reasons, but given how little impact this has I don't see the point in giving it any attention.

What does it say about you when you do open your tongue and comment in a display of confirmation bias? Thanks for doing the favor of not commenting before I guess?

That's great. "My best friend is black so I'm not a racist" teas. Concern troll all you want. I'm not buying it.

Your final statement sums it up. Your agenda is fighting "establishment" politics using Hillary as a scapegoat. You're OK with voting for Hillary but have such a seething hatred of establishment that you wouldn't mind shading her on your way to the voting booth with any morsel tossed your way. Who needs enemies when you have friends like this really?

How naive can you be if you believe that such machinations don't exist and never will irrespective of who is in power? 

Influence and power go hand in hand, and someone is going to use that influence to drive things their way. Considering how little impact this has on anything political, one wonders why you are blowing this particular situation completely out of proportion for your own ends.

I don't even think you understand why I'm even having this discussion with you.

Feel free to make your opinions, just stop stating your own conclusions as assumptions and facts. That's what irritates me. That's when you see me posting essays in response.

I couldn't care less what you think about anyone. The way you are so eager to cast your own version of the truth on a set of data and speak about it so confidently is EXACTLY what pisses me off. 

 

"The duties of the ISAB are advisory only."

And what exactly do you think they are advising?? What the secretary of state should eat as part of a well balanced diet?

 

"It's great that you think that having very qualified people somehow disqualifies less qualified ones from being part of the board, especially when those do have something to offer Raj has significant experience in risk management and cybersecurity as well as experience on foreign policy boards, so you assuming he he has no qualifications whatsoever is ridiculous. "

No he didn't  There is a reason why the internal response was to delay reporters who questioned his resume until he could step down. He didn't have any experience, certainly not enough to be a board member of ISAB.

"Also he didn't quit when "it saw the light of day". 

"Fernando blamed his resignation on the "unique, unexpected, and excessive volatility in the international market these last few weeks" in a letter sent to Clinton on August 17, 2011."

Why would he send a letter to Clinton if he resigned because he was told to leave? "

Are you serious  Yes that's the excuse that was used.... You must be joking though when emails leaked telling government officials to "Stall" the ABC and other reporters for 24 hours was given TWICE. When they finally got any sort of response he had just resigned. 

"Dude it's a position on an advisory board. This isn't some huge political favor. 

Also there you go tying in "big donor". You're trying to establish some correlation between donations and receiving the job. That's based on circumstantial evidence, nothing more"

Being a board member on ISAB is an absolutely big deal though... It's probably what also got him into the American Security Project as well as what allowed him to become a Super Delegate as well as what allowed him to get invited to the White House State Dinner, honoring the British Prime Minister.

As for the correlation between donations and receiving the job - Why the hell do you think he was hired? Do you think Hillary really hired some random unqualified person that just happened to be a big donor to her campaign?
Come on! It's as obvious as it can possibly get!

"Are you trying to imply that donors to charity should never interact with the government?"

Where have I even ****ing implied that? Are actually joking? 

Also it wasn't just $10,000

"Fernando's history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific -- and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid. After Barack Obama bested Clinton for the 2008 nomination, Fernando became a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list."

 

DO you actually think that quote from Slate helps your case?

"Here's the article from Slate summing it up well:

"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.""

THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT I AM TRYING TO GET INTO YOUR HEAD!

No it wasn't illegal and I never claimed it was! It was highly questionable and unethical! It also speaks volumes about Hillary Clinton, Establishment politics, and political donations.

Yes, it is circumstantial evidence, but as Slate points out, "there almost never is [a smoking gun] when it comes to this type of thing"


'What does it say about you when you do open your tongue and comment in a display of confirmation bias? "

And you don't think you have any confirmation bias? Please

 

"that's great. "My best friend is black so I'm not a racist" teas."

What an absolutely nonsensical, disgusting and ridiculous thing to say. How are those two quotes even similar? What an absolutely gross thing to say - this is exactly why I always bite my tongue. You take things to such a low level of discussion by saying such outlandish things about the people you are conversing with.

"Your final statement sums it up. Your agenda is fighting "establishment" politics using Hillary as a scapegoat. You're OK with voting for Hillary but have such a seething hatred of establishment that you wouldn't mind shading her on your way to the voting booth with any morsel tossed your way. Who needs enemies when you have friends like this really?"

Really? You think now that she has the democratic nomination she should be immune from criticism or something? What a silly comment. I'm not using Hillary as a scapegoat- but she is a fantastic example of establishment politics. I'll continue to criticise her when she is in the white house too. She ain't my friend  she may as well call me her enemy considering we clearly have two very separate sets of values.

" I don't even think you understand why I'm even having this discussion with you.

Feel free to make your opinions, just stop stating your own conclusions as assumptions and facts. That's what irritates me. That's when you see me posting essays in response.

I couldn't care less what you think about anyone. The way you are so eager to cast your own version of the truth on a set of data and speak about it so confidently is EXACTLY what pisses me off. "

You know what? The feeling is mutual, you talk so much **** about Bernie supporters being "brainwashed" into a part of a "cult of personality" and you have no idea of the irony when you cannot even accept the most obvious critique of Hillary which is absolutely, undeniably true. She is part of the establishment and corporations donate to her because they expect something in return. They continue to donate to her because they have received returns on their investments before.

This incident is just a small scale case of huge, institutional corruption where donors receive political favours from the candidates they spend money on.

[Luiz 4,253]

the spoils system never died  

 

from the outside looking in this appears to be blatant corruption. want to get your foot in the door to big time  DC politics? pay hillary and you're in. regardless whether anyone else does this kind of thing (its been done forever) hillary clinton is clumsy enough to get popped for it.

 

this looks bad no matter how you slice it, the majority will  view this and come away with nothing but a sour taste in their mouth. you can get into the details of this and try to find a way to absolve her of any wrongdoing  all you want but that **** doesnt matter a bit in the end. story makes the bitch look shady, because she just has always come off shady. this adds to that

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

8 minutes ago, Bebe said:

*snip*

I'm honestly getting tired of this. For once I'd like someone here to not ****ing discuss these issues and their assumptions and conclusions with such confidence in their own confirmation bias.

"undeniably true".

ugh  

Believe what you want I'm done arguing in circles as you refuse to bend making it incredibly hard for us to ever reach compromise.