Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:59 PM

This is who we nominated...more Clinton Foundation corruption (CNN)

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

Washington (CNN)A major political donor to the Clintons and other top Democrats was selected by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to serve on a key State Department intelligence board in 2011, despite having no clear background in the area, according to emails released this week.

Rajiv Fernando has donated $9,400 to Clinton's two White House bids -- first her 2008 run and again this year -- and has been a generous donor to Democrats running for the House and Senate and to President Barack Obama.

Fernando, a Chicago securities trader, has also been a prolific donor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $1 million to the organization, according to its website.

In July 2011, Fernando was appointed to a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB), a panel filled with top-level foreign policy advisers and security experts. Former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart chairs the current panel, which includes retired generals, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other high-ranking national security experts.

This guy was a *stock broker*... How on earth does that qualify him to have top secret security clearance? You can't make this stuff up.

91 replies, 7829 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

91 replies	Author	Time	Post
This is who we nominated...more Clinton Foundation corruption (CNN) (Original post)	HerbChestnut	Jun 2016	OP
Old news! Recycled garbage!! Nothingburger! RW Smearjob!!!	reformist2	Jun 2016	#1
Date on the link says June 10th...that's fairly recent	Jack Bone	Jun 2016	#28
Article says 2011, not recent, just a rerun.	Thinkingabout	Jun 2016	#30
This is the first reporting of this story. We got the 2011 emails via FOIA	JonLeibowitz	Jun 2016	#35
No, 2011 is when Hill appointed him to the board. She was SOS in 2011.	senz	Jun 2016	#37
good grief....	chillfactor	Jun 2016	#2
Why should this be blocked?	HerbChestnut	Jun 2016	#5
Probably because while factual, it does not give the entire picture.	leftofcool	Jun 2016	#11
Then please, fill us in on the part that CNN left out.	HerbChestnut	Jun 2016	#14
cricket	JonLeibowitz	Jun 2016	#36
Negative talk could demoralize Hillary supporters, thereby helping Repugs!	reformist2	Jun 2016	#12
We will never be demoralized.	leftofcool	Jun 2016	#15
Exactly. How can we get demoralized, if we never read about any of Hillary's mistakes! It's perfect.	reformist2	Jun 2016	#18
Sorry, Bernie lost. Hope you get it out of your system real soon	leftofcool	Jun 2016	#22
How is the story about the Clinton Foundation about Bernie?	Ned_Devine	Jun 2016	#32
if it's not Heralding the Second Coming	RazBerryBeret	Jun 2016	#76
Remember when this place was kind of fun and cool?	Ned_Devine	Jun 2016	#80
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT IT ISN'T ABOUT BERNIE LOSING!	ChiciB1	Jun 2016	#88
trumptrumptrump	840high	Jun 2016	#19
You did it beautifully!	senz	Jun 2016	#41
Because your title reads like I'm reading FreakRepublic or a Faux News message board	Maru Kitteh	Jun 2016	#47
But constructive criticism will always be allowed...	Cooley Hurd	Jun 2016	#59
I would think you're right, but not everyone agrees	thesquanderer	Jun 2016	#79
...by a HRC supporter who has no business being a host of anything...	Cooley Hurd	Jun 2016	#82
The article yes, the straight-from-the-sphincter-of-FAUX-news choice of title	Maru Kitteh	Jun 2016	#81
Title, no.	Cooley Hurd	Jun 2016	#83
Well whoopty-doo for you. I've been here since 2004.	Maru Kitteh	Jun 2016	#86
Great way to build a bridge...	Cooley Hurd	Jun 2016	#87
There's nothing "RW" about it. It's a factual article from CNN	HerbChestnut	Jun 2016	#74
It's CNN, but it's sourced to literally Citizens United.	Lord Magus	Jun 2016	#85
I know, right? It will be like living in a protective bubble.	reformist2	Jun 2016	#10
And then you won't have to read any news about Hill's history.	senz	Jun 2016	#39
i know right?	elana i am	Jun 2016	#3
Another stupid post	The_Casual_Observer	Jun 2016	#4
Really? So you have counter evidence to what was stated in the article?	HerbChestnut	Jun 2016	#7
It's not worth arguing about. It's stupid on its face,	The_Casual_Observer	Jun 2016	#24
Stupid that Hill rewards major donors with positions they're not	senz	Jun 2016	#40
Pay to play baby!	jalan48	Jun 2016	#6
I know who we did not nominate	KingFlorez	Jun 2016	#8
No reply to op?	840high	Jun 2016	#20
This message was self-deleted by its author	KingFlorez	Jun 2016	#21
So that's how you respond to bad news about Hillary?	senz	Jun 2016	#42
I except that Bernie lost and I'm not bitter about it.	NWCorona	Jun 2016	#78
He is not a stock broker	leftofcool	Jun 2016	#9
He's called a 'securities trader' right there in the article...	HerbChestnut	Jun 2016	#13
Try reading the man's actual resume.	leftofcool	Jun 2016	#17
From Wikipedia (Because I can't view his entire profile on LinkedIn)	HerbChestnut	Jun 2016	#23
The IASB had him chucked off in 2 days, he was that unqualified	Arazi	Jun 2016	#25
His actual resume? You mean the one State Dept refused to give to a reporter for a story on Quals?	JonLeibowitz	Jun 2016	#38
It isn't up to the State Department to give out anyone's resume. That is up to the individual.	leftofcool	Jun 2016	#61
In Hillaryland, he's not a "stock broker", he's a "securities reviewer"!	reformist2	Jun 2016	#60
...	AzDar	Jun 2016	#16
"conservative group Citizens United" -- nuff said.	Sparkly	Jun 2016	#26
Please leave	Gomez163	Jun 2016	#27
Why? Don't you want to know what Hill did as SOS?	senz	Jun 2016	#43
I see some of you are ALL FOR Citizens United	Maru Kitteh	Jun 2016	#49
This has nothing to do with Citizens United.	senz	Jun 2016	#51
Oh, it has EVERYTHING to do with CU.	Maru Kitteh	Jun 2016	#52
I guess ya'll progressives like CU now?	leftofcool	Jun 2016	#62
cough Clinton SuperPACs funded thanks to Citizens United ruling cough	chascarrillo	Jun 2016	#65
They dislike facts	pinebox	Jun 2016	#70
FOUR Days to go...	brooklynite	Jun 2016	#29
Four days until you won't have to know any more about your candidate?	senz	Jun 2016	#45
This isn't a news outlet, It's a privately owned forum.	leftofcool	Jun 2016	#63
We didn't nominate the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary's connection there is as a donor.	pnwmom	Jun 2016	#31
Never even sent any emails. Right?!	unc70	Jun 2016	#33
Your days of being able to insult the Democratic nominee here are numbered.	pnwmom	Jun 2016	#34
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Jun 2016	#48
Then why did she appoint a major Foundation donor to a position	senz	Jun 2016	#44
If you knew more about boards, you would understand	pnwmom	Jun 2016	#46
But the professional staff were baffled by it & then he had to resign	senz	Jun 2016	#50
self-delete	pnwmom	Jun 2016	#53
LOL, I'm going to be generous and assume you're tired tonight, pnwmom.	senz	Jun 2016	#55
You're right, I misread that. Thanks for clarifying.	pnwmom	Jun 2016	#56
He is/was an expert in the field of computer security	leftofcool	Jun 2016	#77
The IASB had him chucked off in 2 days, he was that unqualified	Arazi	Jun 2016	#91
No wonder I couldn't find salary information about this board. It's an unpaid position!	randome	Jun 2016	#68
Citizens United says he was unqualified and you believe them. LMAO!	leftofcool	Jun 2016	#64
"No income"? Bill got paid $500,000 by the foundation for a one hour speech. Then there's this ...	Scuba	Jun 2016	#69
Post removed	Post removed	Jun 2016	#54
I remember the same crap	MFM008	Jun 2016	#57
Letting people sleep over in the White House is one thing...	HerbChestnut	Jun 2016	#75
It's going to be a ruthless GE. So much on both sides to be outed.	George Eliot	Jun 2016	#58
Only a few more days and we can ignore this corrupt behavior. Yay....	think	Jun 2016	#66
That we KNOW she's vulnerable to blackmail and picked her anyway doesn't say much for us.	Scuba	Jun 2016	#67
With your 'special' knowledge, perhaps you should warn her about this, then.	randome	Jun 2016	#71
What position? I didn't mention any position. Or any special knowledge.	Scuba	Jun 2016	#72
But you "know" she's subject to blackmail.	randome	Jun 2016	#73
Two Clintons. 41 years. $3 Billion. Inside the Clinton Donor Network (WaPo 2015)	bobthedrummer	Jun 2016	#84
Thanks for supporting the ticket in November	SCantiGOP	Jun 2016	#89
This slippery slope became obvious	felix_numinous	Jun 2016	#90

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:01 AM

reformist2 (9,841 posts)

1. Old news! Recycled garbage!! Nothingburger! RW Smearjob!!!

Did I do that right?

Reply to this post

Response to reformist2 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:55 AM

Jack Bone (2,023 posts)

28. Date on the link says June 10th...that's fairly recent

on my calendar here in Indiana!

Reply to this post

Response to Jack Bone (Reply #28)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:05 AM

Thinkingabout (30,058 posts)

30. Article says 2011, not recent, just a rerun.

Reply to this post

Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #30)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:45 AM

JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)

35. This is the first reporting of this story. We got the 2011 emails via FOIA

Reply to this post

Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #30)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:47 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

37. No, 2011 is when Hill appointed him to the board. She was SOS in 2011.

The emails that revealed it just came out this week.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:04 AM

chillfactor (6,881 posts)

2. good grief....

let it go already...5 more days and posts like yours will be blocked...thank goodness!

Reply to this post

Response to chillfactor (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:10 AM

HerbChestnut (3,649 posts)

5. Why should this be blocked?

Tell me, why? This is an article from CNN posting a factual situation. Unless you can somehow refute the points made in the article, there's no reason something like this should be blocked from DU.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:12 AM

leftofcool (19,460 posts)

11. Probably because while factual, it does not give the entire picture.

Reply to this post

Response to leftofcool (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:14 AM

HerbChestnut (3,649 posts)

14. Then please, fill us in on the part that CNN left out.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:46 AM

JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)

36. cricket

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:12 AM

reformist2 (9,841 posts)

12. Negative talk could demoralize Hillary supporters, thereby helping Repugs!

Did I do that right?

Reply to this post

Response to reformist2 (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:14 AM

leftofcool (19,460 posts)

15. We will never be demoralized.

We just think these silly posts that have been posted 50 times are just that.............silly.

Reply to this post

Response to leftofcool (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:17 AM

reformist2 (9,841 posts)

18. Exactly. How can we get demoralized, if we never read about any of Hillary's mistakes! It's perfect.

Reply to this post

Response to reformist2 (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:23 AM

leftofcool (19,460 posts)

22. Sorry, Bernie lost. Hope you get it out of your system real soon

Reply to this post

Response to leftofcool (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:23 AM

Ned_Devine (3,146 posts)

32. How is the story about the Clinton Foundation about Bernie?

Reply to this post

Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #32)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:21 AM

RazBerryBeret (3,058 posts)

76. if it's not Heralding the Second Coming

aka HRC, then is somehow about Bernie, or because of Bernie.

Reply to this post

Response to RazBerryBeret (Reply #76)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:01 AM

Ned_Devine (3,146 posts)

80. Remember when this place was kind of fun and cool?

I kind of hate it here now.

Reply to this post

Response to leftofcool (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:33 PM

ChiciB1 (15,435 posts)

88. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT IT ISN'T ABOUT BERNIE LOSING!

It's about opening OUR eyes and looking at REAL facts. Whether it was Bernie or any other candidate... THE FACTS REMAIN THE SAME!

Telling people to "get over" him losing just shows that trying to putting these facts into Nanna, Nanna, Boo, Boo tells me that REALITY to some means "Ignorance IS Bliss!"

Train wreck coming, but watching the crash is too horrible because we KNOW people WILL DIE!

Reply to this post

Response to reformist2 (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:17 AM

840high (17,196 posts)

19. trumptrumptrump

Reply to this post

Response to reformist2 (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:56 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

41. You did it beautifully!

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:17 AM

Maru Kitteh (25,862 posts)

47. Because your title reads like I'm reading FreakRepublic or a Faux News message board

And the purpose of DU is not to engage in right-wing attacks on our candidate.

You'll learn quickly, or not.

Reply to this post

Response to Maru Kitteh (Reply #47)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:16 AM

Cooley Hurd (26,877 posts)

59. But constructive criticism will always be allowed...

1) CNN is an allowed source on DU
2) The article is not an opinion piece; it's reporting facts

If you think articles like the one in the OP are going to be magically pulled after June 16, you're going to be disappointed.

Reply to this post

Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #59)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:00 AM

thesquanderer (11,279 posts)

79. I would think you're right, but not everyone agrees

Like you, I saw this as a legitimate news story, but when it was first posted on LBN, it was locked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141483781

Reply to this post

Response to thesquanderer (Reply #79)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:11 PM

Cooley Hurd (26,877 posts)

82. ...by a HRC supporter who has no business being a host of anything...

...if their bias gets in front of their job (volunteered, granted, but they have to abide by rules).

THAT particular host has done this repeatedly.

Reply to this post

Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #59)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:08 PM

Maru Kitteh (25,862 posts)

81. The article yes, the straight-from-the-sphincter-of-FAUX-news choice of title

not so much.

If you think that kind of crap will fly after June 16, you're going to be disappointed.

Reply to this post

Response to Maru Kitteh (Reply #81)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:13 PM

Cooley Hurd (26,877 posts)

83. Title, no.

Content will be protected by long-established protocols (since 2001 - I've been here since 2002).

Reply to this post

Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #83)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:26 PM

Maru Kitteh (25,862 posts)

86. Well whoopty-doo for you. I've been here since 2004.

So glad we agree that bullshit, right-wing, knuckle-dragging, straight from a Freeper latrine titles and sources (yes, this is CNN we know that) will not be tolerated soon. It will be an outstandingly welcome change.

Reply to this post

Response to Maru Kitteh (Reply #86)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:29 PM

Cooley Hurd (26,877 posts)

87. Great way to build a bridge...

No wonder your candidate is struggling in the GE polls.

...and I haven't had 5 hides EVER.

Reply to this post

Response to Maru Kitteh (Reply #47)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:16 AM

HerbChestnut (3,649 posts)

74. There's nothing "RW" about it. It's a factual article from CNN

Unless of course you deem *any* criticism a "RW attack"

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:20 PM

Lord Magus (1,999 posts)

85. It's CNN, but it's sourced to literally Citizens United.

Yes, that Citizens United.

Reply to this post

Response to chillfactor (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:11 AM

reformist2 (9,841 posts)

10. I know, right? It will be like living in a protective bubble.

Reply to this post

Response to chillfactor (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:50 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

39. And then you won't have to read any news about Hill's history.

I mean, why would you want information about someone who's running for president?

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:06 AM

elana i am (814 posts)

3. i know right?

makes ya wonder if illegal insider trading is the purview of the ISAB or something.

ok that was supposed to be facetious but...

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:08 AM

The_Casual_Observer (26,667 posts)

4. Another stupid post

Reply to this post

Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:10 AM

HerbChestnut (3,649 posts)

7. Really? So you have counter evidence to what was stated in the article?

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:35 AM

The_Casual_Observer (26,667 posts)

24. It's not worth arguing about. It's stupid on its face,

Reply to this post

Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #24)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:54 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

40. Stupid that Hill rewards major donors with positions they're not

qualified for? Yes, I suppose it is stupid, but maybe she thought she'd get away with it.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:10 AM

jalan48 (13,105 posts)

6. Pay to play baby!

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:10 AM

KingFlorez (12,689 posts)

8. I know who we did not nominate

First name Bernie, last name Sanders. I really know how much it hurts to lose, but this becoming very sad.

Reply to this post

Response to KingFlorez (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:18 AM

840high (17,196 posts)

20. No reply to op?

Reply to this post

Response to 840high (Reply #20)

KingFlorez This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to KingFlorez (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:07 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

42. So that's how you respond to bad news about Hillary?

Put down Bernie and his supporters?

Reply to this post

Response to KingFlorez (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:26 AM

NWCorona (8,541 posts)

78. I except that Bernie lost and I'm not bitter about it.

That doesn't change this story tho.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:11 AM

leftofcool (19,460 posts)

9. He is not a stock broker

If you had bothered to read his resume, you would have found that he was the CEO of an international/global trading company which has very much to do with security. He is also quite knowledgeable in technology.

Reply to this post

Response to leftofcool (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:13 AM

HerbChestnut (3,649 posts)

13. He's called a 'securities trader' right there in the article...

In fact, it's in the part I highlighted.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:16 AM

leftofcool (19,460 posts)

17. Try reading the man's actual resume.

I know that for some people that everything on the internets and in the media is true but I usually do my own actual research. It helps.

Reply to this post

Response to leftofcool (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:26 AM

HerbChestnut (3,649 posts)

23. From Wikipedia (Because I can't view his entire profile on LinkedIn)

From 1991 to 2001, Fernando worked in trading positions at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade.[5][7][8]

In 2002, Fernando founded Chopper Trading, a Chicago-based proprietary trading firm that concentrated in the areas of fixed income, equities, and other products.[9] The company has been regarded for their investments in technology, hiring highly qualified programmers, and for low employee turnover.[9][10] Under Fernando’s leadership, Chopper Trading had a presence on major U.S. exchanges including the CME, CBOT, NYSE, and internationally on the LSE, ICE, and Eurex.[7] As CEO, Fernando grew the company to over 200 employees, with offices in Chicago, New York, London, Munich, San Francisco, and Washington, DC.[7][11]

In January 2015, Fernando sold Chopper Trading to DRW Trading Group, another Chicago-based proprietary trading firm.[12][13]

In 2016, Fernando launched Scoutahead.com, an Internet start-up. Fernando currently serves as the Chairman and CEO of Scoutahead.com.[14][15]

As far as foreign policy is concerned, this is what was listed:

Raj Fernando serves on the board of directors for the American Security Project.[5] He also serves on the Foreign Policy Leadership Committee at the Brookings Institution and has been a member of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.[3][5]

Compared to some of the other people that have been given Top Secret security clearance, this seems pretty shallow...

Reply to this post

Response to leftofcool (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:36 AM

Arazi (5,278 posts)

25. The IASB had him chucked off in 2 days, he was that unqualified

Reply to this post

Response to leftofcool (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:47 AM

JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)

38. His actual resume? You mean the one State Dept refused to give to a reporter for a story on Quals?

Do you have it??

Reply to this post

Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #38)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:35 AM

leftofcool (19,460 posts)

61. It isn't up to the State Department to give out anyone's resume. That is up to the individual.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:32 AM

reformist2 (9,841 posts)

60. In Hillaryland, he's not a "stock broker", he's a "securities reviewer"!

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:15 AM

AzDar (14,023 posts)

16. ...

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:37 AM

Sparkly (24,069 posts)

26. "conservative group Citizens United" -- nuff said.

"... email obtained by the conservative group Citizens United and released to CNN."

Cherrypicked, taken out of context, twisted into a contrived point.

Typical rightwing tripe.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:37 AM

Gomez163 (2,039 posts)

27. Please leave

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Reply #27)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:08 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

43. Why? Don't you want to know what Hill did as SOS?

I thought you liked learning about your candidate.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:23 AM

Maru Kitteh (25,862 posts)

49. I see some of you are ALL FOR Citizens United

when it suits your purpose.

CU is not credible. If you don't know why, visit your local library and do some research. Unplugging would probably do you some good.

In the words of Ferris Beuhler,

it's over.

Reply to this post

Response to Maru Kitteh (Reply #49)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:28 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

51. This has nothing to do with Citizens United.

And please don't worry about my health, dear.

We don't know if it's "over," do we? She doesn't have the delegates yet and her status with the FBI remains precarious.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #51)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:30 AM

Maru Kitteh (25,862 posts)

52. Oh, it has EVERYTHING to do with CU.

And it's over.

SBS is going to suspend on Tues or Weds and shortly thereafter, endorse the nominee.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #51)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:36 AM

leftofcool (19,460 posts)

62. I guess ya'll progressives like CU now?

And yes, this has everything to do with CU.

Reply to this post

Response to leftofcool (Reply #62)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:49 AM

chascarrillo (3,897 posts)

65. cough Clinton SuperPACs funded thanks to Citizens United ruling cough

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:13 AM

pinebox (5,761 posts)

70. They dislike facts

They can't handle the truth so "please leave" is now a valid argument and thing to say apparently lol

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:56 AM

brooklynite (79,333 posts)

29. FOUR Days to go...

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #29)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:14 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

45. Four days until you won't have to know any more about your candidate?

Too bad you can't have other news outlets similarly censored.

It would be sad if everyone were well-informed but DUers.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #45)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:36 AM

leftofcool (19,460 posts)

63. This isn't a news outlet, It's a privately owned forum.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:15 AM

pnwmom (106,275 posts)

31. We didn't nominate the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary's connection there is as a donor.

She receives no income from the Foundation and doesn't even have a position on the board.

Reply to this post

Response to pnwmom (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:30 AM

unc70 (5,416 posts)

33. Never even sent any emails. Right?!

Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:23 AM - Edit history (1)

ETA I am referring to her many foundation emails. Whether she was "employed" by the foundation, she was actively involved with it, some of her staff were employed by the foundation even after they were employed by the State Department (several for 6-8 months, one for 4 years), and her buddy Blumenthal was paid by the foundation.

BTW This guy is not a "security" export; he is an expert in doing really fast trading of "securities" (stocks, bonds, futures, derivatives, commodities) using computer systems for advantage. He is a specialized hedge fund manager.

Reply to this post

Response to unc70 (Reply #33)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:31 AM

pnwmom (106,275 posts)

34. Your days of being able to insult the Democratic nominee here are numbered.

Enjoy them while they last.

Reply to this post

Response to pnwmom (Reply #34)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Response to pnwmom (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:11 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

44. Then why did she appoint a major Foundation donor to a position

for which he was entirely unqualified?

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #44)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:16 AM

pnwmom (106,275 posts)

46. If you knew more about boards, you would understand

that they often include individuals who are experts in their fields but not connected to the organization's field.

Nick Merrill, Clinton's traveling press secretary, issued a statement.
"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."

Reply to this post

Response to pnwmom (Reply #46)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:25 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

50. But the professional staff were baffled by it & then he had to resign

after the news got out.

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.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

And you have no idea what I do and do not know about boards.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #50)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:33 AM

pnwmom (106,275 posts)

53. self-delete

Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Response to pnwmom (Reply #53)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:39 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

55. LOL, I'm going to be generous and assume you're tired tonight, pnwmom.

Hill placed the generous Foundation donor on "a sensitive government intelligence advisory board" at State.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #55)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:57 AM

pnwmom (106,275 posts)

56. You're right, I misread that. Thanks for clarifying.

I still think we need more information because I understand he is an expert in computers and security, which could be relevant to that board.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #50)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:25 AM

leftofcool (19,460 posts)

77. He is/was an expert in the field of computer security

Which is why he would have been on the board. People with security clearances in that field do not give out information, most do not give out their names, especially if they work for or within the government. They do not throw around their resumes, they do not talk to staff about what they know of security in other countries and they do not talk about what they do with other board members.

Reply to this post

Response to leftofcool (Reply #77)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:07 PM

Arazi (5,278 posts)

91. The IASB had him chucked off in 2 days, he was that unqualified

Did you read the article?

Reply to this post

Response to pnwmom (Reply #46)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:07 AM

randome (34,845 posts)

68. No wonder I couldn't find salary information about this board. It's an unpaid position!

[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]

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #44)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:38 AM

leftofcool (19,460 posts)

64. Citizens United says he was unqualified and you believe them. LMAO!

Reply to this post

Response to pnwmom (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:13 AM

Scuba (53,475 posts)

69. "No income"? Bill got paid $500,000 by the foundation for a one hour speech. Then there's this ...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-28/government-watchdog-calls-clinton-foundation-slush-fund

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group once run by leading progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout. …

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. …

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:36 AM

MFM008 (19,651 posts)

57. I remember the same crap

when he was President, they were "selling" access to the White House.
Letting friends sleep over in the Lincoln bedroom.
Whatever.
Are you telling me that NO politician ever appoints friends or donors to positions?
This isn't going anywhere.

Reply to this post

Response to MFM008 (Reply #57)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:18 AM

HerbChestnut (3,649 posts)

75. Letting people sleep over in the White House is one thing...

Giving access to Top Secret national security information is another.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:41 AM

George Eliot (701 posts)

58. It's going to be a ruthless GE. So much on both sides to be outed.

Maybe I'll vacation in Canada for the next six months.

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 07:39 AM

think (11,641 posts)

66. Only a few more days and we can ignore this corrupt behavior. Yay....

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:04 AM

Scuba (53,475 posts)

67. That we KNOW she's vulnerable to blackmail and picked her anyway doesn't say much for us.

Reply to this post

Response to Scuba (Reply #67)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:16 AM

randome (34,845 posts)

71. With your 'special' knowledge, perhaps you should warn her about this, then.

As was pointed out above, the position is unpaid and voluntary. Hard to imagine someone being blackmailed over that!
[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]

Reply to this post

Response to randome (Reply #71)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:18 AM

Scuba (53,475 posts)

72. What position? I didn't mention any position. Or any special knowledge.

Reply to this post

Response to Scuba (Reply #72)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:21 AM

randome (34,845 posts)

73. But you "know" she's subject to blackmail.

The OP was originally about her appointment of someone to an advisory board so I thought that was what you were referring to.
[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]

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:16 PM

bobthedrummer (26,083 posts)

84. Two Clintons. 41 years. $3 Billion. Inside the Clinton Donor Network (WaPo 2015)

"Both Clintons declined to be interviewed or comment for this article."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money

K&R#44

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:22 PM

SCantiGOP (12,423 posts)

89. Thanks for supporting the ticket in November

Or what is your motivation for this post?

Reply to this post

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:57 PM

felix_numinous (5,198 posts)

90. This slippery slope became obvious

when a 41 year coke addict from a prominent family was selected president in 2000--and NOTHING was discussed or done about that stolen election or to address the crimes that followed.

Reply to this post

2016 Postmortem (Forum)

This is who we nominated...more Clinton Foundation corruption (CNN)

1. Old news! Recycled garbage!! Nothingburger! RW Smearjob!!!

28. Date on the link says June 10th...that's fairly recent

30. Article says 2011, not recent, just a rerun.

35. This is the first reporting of this story. We got the 2011 emails via FOIA

37. No, 2011 is when Hill appointed him to the board. She was SOS in 2011.

2. good grief....

5. Why should this be blocked?

11. Probably because while factual, it does not give the entire picture.

14. Then please, fill us in on the part that CNN left out.

36. *cricket*

12. Negative talk could demoralize Hillary supporters, thereby helping Repugs!

15. We will never be demoralized.

18. Exactly. How can we get demoralized, if we never read about any of Hillary's mistakes! It's perfect.

22. Sorry, Bernie lost. Hope you get it out of your system real soon

32. How is the story about the Clinton Foundation about Bernie?

76. if it's not Heralding the Second Coming

80. Remember when this place was kind of fun and cool?

88. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT IT ISN'T ABOUT BERNIE LOSING!

19. trumptrumptrump

41. You did it beautifully!

47. Because your title reads like I'm reading FreakRepublic or a Faux News message board

59. But constructive criticism will always be allowed...

79. I would think you're right, but not everyone agrees

82. ...by a HRC supporter who has no business being a host of anything...

81. The article yes, the straight-from-the-sphincter-of-FAUX-news choice of title

83. Title, no.

86. Well whoopty-doo for you. I've been here since 2004.

87. Great way to build a bridge...

74. There's nothing "RW" about it. It's a factual article from CNN

85. It's CNN, but it's sourced to literally Citizens United.

10. I know, right? It will be like living in a protective bubble.

39. And then you won't have to read any news about Hill's history.

3. i know right?

4. Another stupid post

7. Really? So you have counter evidence to what was stated in the article?

24. It's not worth arguing about. It's stupid on its face,

40. Stupid that Hill rewards major donors with positions they're not

6. Pay to play baby!

8. I know who we did not nominate

20. No reply to op?

42. So that's how you respond to bad news about Hillary?

78. I except that Bernie lost and I'm not bitter about it.

9. He is not a stock broker

13. He's called a 'securities trader' right there in the article...

17. Try reading the man's actual resume.

23. From Wikipedia (Because I can't view his entire profile on LinkedIn)

25. The IASB had him chucked off in 2 days, he was that unqualified

38. His actual resume? You mean the one State Dept refused to give to a reporter for a story on Quals?

61. It isn't up to the State Department to give out anyone's resume. That is up to the individual.

60. In Hillaryland, he's not a "stock broker", he's a "securities reviewer"!

16. ...

26. "conservative group Citizens United" -- nuff said.

27. Please leave

43. Why? Don't you want to know what Hill did as SOS?

49. I see some of you are ALL FOR Citizens United

51. This has nothing to do with Citizens United.

52. Oh, it has EVERYTHING to do with CU.

62. I guess ya'll progressives like CU now?

65. cough Clinton SuperPACs funded thanks to Citizens United ruling cough

70. They dislike facts

29. FOUR Days to go...

45. Four days until you won't have to know any more about your candidate?

63. This isn't a news outlet, It's a privately owned forum.

31. We didn't nominate the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary's connection there is as a donor.

33. Never even sent any emails. Right?!

34. Your days of being able to insult the Democratic nominee here are numbered.

44. Then why did she appoint a major Foundation donor to a position

46. If you knew more about boards, you would understand

50. But the professional staff were baffled by it & then he had to resign

53. self-delete

55. LOL, I'm going to be generous and assume you're tired tonight, pnwmom.

56. You're right, I misread that. Thanks for clarifying.

77. He is/was an expert in the field of computer security

91. The IASB had him chucked off in 2 days, he was that unqualified

68. No wonder I couldn't find salary information about this board. It's an unpaid position!

64. Citizens United says he was unqualified and you believe them. LMAO!

69. "No income"? Bill got paid $500,000 by the foundation for a one hour speech. Then there's this ...

57. I remember the same crap

75. Letting people sleep over in the White House is one thing...

36. cricket