Report: Hillary donor served on intelligence board for which he wasn’t qualified

(AP Photo / Richard Shiro)

Then I said, put the money over there! (AP Photo / Richard Shiro)

Oh, what’s this? Another story about apparent pay-to-play involving Hillary Clinton and the State Department? From ABC News:

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

“The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to ‘protect the name’ of the Secretary, ‘stall’ the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

“Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

“A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

“‘We had no idea who he was,’ one board member told ABC News.”

In the very next paragraph, ABC News demonstrates this story isn’t the result of an election-year opposition-research dump. Reporters have been after this story for almost half a decade. It took five years of reporting and two years of litigation by a third party — that’s who finally sent the emails to ABC News, not the State Department, despite its legal obligations — to put together the story.

Remember that investment of time and resources to get a single story the next time (probably on this comment thread) some Clinton sycophant tells you a story is a “nothingburger” if there isn’t a conviction within a few days of its being published.

But back to the story itself. If expertise in electronic trading were counter-intuitively relevant to arms control — to the point Fernando needed to be on the ISAB, rather than merely advising board members — that should have been easy enough for State Department officials to explain. If that reason were sensitive in nature — say, because we didn’t want arms traders and nuclear proliferators to know we were onto some scheme to finance their operations through high-frequency trading — that would seem to be a reason not to put Fernando on the board, since the names of the appointees are public knowledge. At the very least, you’d think State could have explained such a scenario in an off-the-record briefing that would have satisfied the curiosity of the ABC News reporters.

Yes, you’d think one of those things would have happened. As opposed to, you know, writing a series of confused emails to one another (read the ABC story for several examples) and stalling with reporters who’d asked a simple question. It’s worth noting here that we’re not talking about the mere prestige of serving on a federal board: ISAB members, ABC reports, qualify “for one of the highest levels of top secret access.” So here’s a question worth asking: Did Hillary’s high-frequency-trading friend (and fund raiser) make any money off the information he got thanks to that access? A federal government more interested in protecting its own integrity — rather than “the name of the Secretary” — would look into that.

Here are some more questions such a federal government would ask: Are there more examples of this out there? Is that the reason Clinton wanted total control over her email to the point she set up an unsecured personal server to host her communications, putting hundreds of classified messages at risk of being stolen by our enemies? How much more overlap is there between a) donors to Clinton’s campaigns and/or the Clinton Foundation, and b) special treatment at State? How many times can someone sell the Lincoln Bedroom, anyway?

Unfortunately, the track record of Barack Obama’s executive branch (motto: “most transparent administration in history, LOLOLOLOL”) suggests it isn’t the kind of group that asks those kind of questions.

Every time someone who can’t stand Donald Trump considers siding with Hillary, that person should read a story like this — or, in case of a serious temptation, this excellent piece by Michael Brendan Dougherty. In the race for worst presidential candidate ever, it’s really a matter of 1 vs. 1a.

Reader Comments 0

110 comments
Infraredguy
Infraredguy

Given the tragic events in Orlando, Hillary has cancelled her planed address to the American Association of Islamic Jihadists and put her Burka back in the clothes closet 

TruthReallyHurts
TruthReallyHurts

Hmmm. No mention by Kyle of the increasing drip, drip, drip of news of Trump's cheating everyday, hard working American's out of being paid for the most basic of services and work. 

These were not complicated, intricate business deals. These are people who did work on Trump properties and he did what his is known for -- bully and bluster. He basically told them "So what? Sue me! My lawyers will keep you tied up in court for years."

HRC has her flaws but she is a far cry better than Trump. It's not even close.

And as for the installation of unqualified individuals, one word for Kyle and the rest of you repubs: Brownie.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

Hillary is a habitual liar who puts her own political viability and need for opacity above national security.

Libya, Syria, Ukraine...all failures.

How does that make her qualified?

TruthReallyHurts
TruthReallyHurts

@Lil_Barry_Bailout You need to stop watching Fox News and get some facts. Situations in all three countries you named are extremely fluid and volatile, and require tact, discernment, pragmatism and intelligence -- all three of which Trump is low on.

As for your lack of facts, take Libya, for example. I'll try to make it simple for you. Gaddafi was a brutal dictator and his actions led to a civil war bent on ousting him. The US (i.e., HRC at State and BHO in the WH) worked with NATO, which supported the rebels who eventually dethroned and killed him. Now, about 70 percent of the country is controlled by a DEMOCRATICALLY elected new government, that is slowly defeating the Islamic state-led pseudo government that controls the other 30 percent or so of the country. In fact, there is a "unity" government coalition group working to "unify" Libya under one government, which will be populated overwhelmingly with the democratically elected members.

But you see, these things take time and are not easy by any stretch. Lives are lost and mistakes are made. Operations of this nature require leaders with diplomatic skills Trump simply does not possess and has no intention on acquiring/learning. This is why he is not qualified to be president. It's really not rocket science.   

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

Next time one of you idiots vilifies Our President Bush for not "doing something" about the vague al Qaeda threats in his PDB, consider that Omar Mateen was "on the radar" of the Obama administration. They had a name, they knew where he lived, and yet did nothing to prevent his attack.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

"The Chicago securities trader...sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress"

------

Think George Costanza attending meetings of his deceased fiancee's charitable trust.

No wonder the corrupt, felonious hag worked so hard to hide her involvement from Americans. Embarrassing.

GeorgeJuarez
GeorgeJuarez

What Obama meant about having a transparent administration he meant that we would be able to see thru his dresses

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

If Hillary loses, will any rich investors be around to help with her cattle futures trading?

MarkVV
MarkVV

It is quite hilarious to read all those comments and attacks by the conservatives and supporters of the Republicans about “Clinton donors” and “peddling of influence,” as if we should forget the millionaire and billionaire donors to all the Republican candidates, who buy their support when elected for fossil industries, energy companies and other big businesses, as well as all other decisions to allow them to maintain and increase their profits and wealth.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

@MarkVV

Hillary might be the first president to have been paid off by big business and Wall Street *before* having been elected.  Of course, some of those payoffs were made during her time as SoS, so those were "fee for service" rather than buying a future benefit.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

"Report: Hillary donor served on intelligence board for which he wasn’t qualified"

----

What do you mean, not qualified?

It says right there in your headline that he's a Clinton donor.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

So egregious have the scandal’s latest developments been that a critical State Department admission from last week has received almost no coverage: Eighteen e-mails between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have been identified, and the government is refusing to disclose them. The administration’s rationale is remarkable: Releasing them, the White House and State Department say, would compromise “the president’s ability to receive unvarnished advice and counsel” from top government officials. Think about what this means. Not only is it obvious that President Obama knew Mrs. Clinton was conducting government business over her private e-mail account, the exchanges the president engaged in with his secretary of state over this unsecured system clearly involved sensitive issues of policy. Clinton was being asked for “advice and counsel” — not about her recommendations for the best country clubs in Martha’s Vineyard, but about matters that the White House judges too sensitive to reveal.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430706/obama-hillary-clinton-email-problem


Another of the many reasons Obama has no interest in seeing that Justice is done, he might have to testify at the trial, or plead the fifth.. 

Waverly
Waverly

The Clintons corrupt?  The Clintons are liars?  The Clintons peddle their political positions for influence?  Say it ain't so!!!!  LMFAO!!!!!!  Hildebeast strikes again, supported by the most "transparent" administration ever.  Obama even looks like muddy water.  Must be Karma. 

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

@Waverly muddy water, that's a good one, but the Libbies won't have a sense of humor.

GeorgiaRedNeck
GeorgiaRedNeck

@Waverly Have there been any arrests? Indictments? Proof of illegal activities? Take a deep breath.

CarlosSantiago
CarlosSantiago

Can you imagine how the Clintons are going to rack up if Hillary gets elected?  Every country who wants something from the U.S. (and that's most of them) will be getting Bill to come give a generic "wash behind your ears" speech and paying him two and three million dollars a pop.  And it'll be a good investment, because they'll get whatever it is they want.
Say what you will about that Hillary Clinton scum, but she's always been for sale.

Infraredguy
Infraredguy

What does qualifications have to do with it? he is a Clinton donor, that's what's important plus he probably wants another night in the Lincoln bedroom, Hillary says cash is King in her administration 

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Infraredguy You don’t have any evidence, but you feel so good throwing mud, don’t you?

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Infraredguy @MarkVV I was referring to your stupid accusation that he "wants another night in the Lincoln bedroom." As for qualification, see Amb. Woolsey' comment  and associated information in the original article and in my earlier post.

Infraredguy
Infraredguy

@MarkVV So he was qualified ? I thought not but you Liberals won't let little things like qualifications and ethics get in the way of hard cash contributions to the Clinton Foundation

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

As sleazy as Trump is, he is a model of virtue compared to the Clintons.  Slick Willy made a pretty penny by being a "chancellor" of this "great institution" of higher learning.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/us/politics/bill-clinton-ends-role-with-laureate-chain-of-for-profit-colleges.html?_r=0


Mr. Clinton’s role as honorary chancellor for the college system, Laureate International Universities, was part of a five-year deal that began on April 24, 2010, an aide with his office said. The end of the agreement was first reported by Bloomberg Politics, and an aide to Mr. Clinton told Bloomberg that the separation had nothing to do with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

“Laureate students represent the next generation of leadership,” Mr. Clinton said in a statement posted on the Laureate website in which he announced his departure. “I have seen a commitment to quality and leadership throughout the Laureate network, and I have enjoyed being a part of it.”

The university system — part of Laureate Education Inc., which according to Bloomberg is the world’s largest for-profit college chain — has been a seven-figure donor to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million, according to the foundation’s website. Laureate has also made five commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative. 

ernestangelie
ernestangelie

Why don't you write about the deaths of Trump's top executives in a helicopter crash? I'm not saying it was suspicious but people are talking.

Tallulah
Tallulah

Nothing to see here.  The Clintons are career criminals, but you libtards will still vote for her cause she's a woman.  That same thinking stuck us with King crybaby in mom jeans.

DaltonbywayofBickley
DaltonbywayofBickley

Not to state the obvious or anything, but isn't every board in the state of Georgia packed with patrons of Nate Deal? Yes, I believe they are. This one is a little more egregious, but only a little. It was the same with King Roy. D.C. is the same.

Finn-McCool
Finn-McCool

Off topic...


"My conscience won't let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America. And shoot them for what? They never called me n#$#$, they never lynched me, they didn't put no dogs on me, they didn't rob me of my nationality, rape and kill my mother and father. ... Shoot them for what? How can I shoot them poor people? Just take me to jail."

~ Muhammad Ali 

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@JFMcNamara It was a bad joke, better left unsaid. But anyone who believes Perdue actually wants Obama dead -- and there are legions of people professing as much on social media today -- never gets to complain about "faux outrage" again.

Brosephus
Brosephus

@Kyle_Wingfield

It was a bad joke indeed, but it does fuel those on the fringe who actually think about harming the president.  They may be clinically insane or unstable, but that doesn't make them harmless.


Things like that are best left unsaid in today's atmosphere.

Finn-McCool
Finn-McCool

Like I said below, people have been creating or finding "smoke" on Hillary for 25 years now. There's never any fire, just more smoke.


Find the fire and then make it stick. Can you do it at least once?Then we can put Bernie up against the Donald.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

@JohnnyReb @Finn-McCool

Democrats have gotten quite comfortable associating themselves with trash.  Hell, they admire it, much like people used to admire the mafia.  By today's Democrat "thinking", Al Capone never killed anyone because he was never convicted of it, amirite?  They had to take down brother Al on a ticky-tack tax charge.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@JohnnyReb @Finn-McCool “there is little if any controversy that Hillary lied over the caskets of the Benghazi fallen when stating they were killed because of an internet video.


No controversy indeed, because the accusation is an obvious lie.

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

@Finn-McCool there is little if any controversy that Hillary lied over the caskets of the Benghazi fallen when stating they were killed because of an internet video.

In saner times, that alone would disqualify her for running for president, much less becoming the nominee.

But instead, we have a Dem party where 70% believe she should keep campaigning even if indicted.

And 65% of Dems who do not think she is lying about the email mess.

Trump has his warts, but Hillary is the one not qualified for public office.

DaltonbywayofBickley
DaltonbywayofBickley

@JohnnyReb @Finn-McCool That you and others see the steaming pustules of toxicity on Trump as warts is part of the problem. Hillary will get my first ever vote for a Democrat for president, because my longtime party has gone over the cliff and given us a stark raving lunatic as the nominee.

Infraredguy
Infraredguy

@MarkVV You are the typical Liberal, Hillary is a liar BUT she's YOUR liar therefore it's ok