06-11-2016, 09:37 AM
Pay for Play? Cash for Favors?
I want to know more about this and allegations like it and hope the mainstream media investigates and presses Clinton for definitive answers. I'm sure Trump will be touching on such allegations in his speech on Monday.
If there's a reasonable explanation and no wrong-doing or causal connection between big donations to the Clintons and appointments within the State Department, and no truth behind insinuations that the Clintons took high paying speaking engagements in return for government favors to foreign Clinton Foundation donors, I think voters should hear that directly from Clinton.
This old insinuation of corruption is being circulated based on research of Clinton's emails by Citizens United, which is an anti-Clinton group. But, that doesn't mean it's not true and doesn't deserve to be addressed clearly and honestly.
Snip:
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 (voluntary) 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.
As a member of the top-level group, Fernando was granted a Top Secret security clearance and given access to highly sensitive information.
Fernando, professional State Department staff noted, seemed an awkward selection for the group and spurred concern when an ABC News reporter inquired about him in 2011.
"We must protect the secretary's and under secretary's name, as well as the integrity of the board. I think it's important to get down to the bottom of this before there's any response," Jamie Mannina, a State Department official, wrote in an August 15, 2011, email obtained by the conservative group Citizens United and released to CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/h...index.html
=====================
Fernando resigned from the Board two days after the ABC inquiry into his appointment, citing pressing professional obligations.
I tend to believe if there was evidence of corruption, wrong-doing, or security breach associated with the appointment, the media would have been all over it and not let it drop 5 years ago.
But, that's not a given and if it gets brushed off as "just another smear by the right with no basis in fact" or "everybody did it" and Clinton doesn't address the appointment with specific facts, her trustworthiness in the eyes of voters will only continue to drop, understandably.
I want to know more about this and allegations like it and hope the mainstream media investigates and presses Clinton for definitive answers. I'm sure Trump will be touching on such allegations in his speech on Monday.
If there's a reasonable explanation and no wrong-doing or causal connection between big donations to the Clintons and appointments within the State Department, and no truth behind insinuations that the Clintons took high paying speaking engagements in return for government favors to foreign Clinton Foundation donors, I think voters should hear that directly from Clinton.
This old insinuation of corruption is being circulated based on research of Clinton's emails by Citizens United, which is an anti-Clinton group. But, that doesn't mean it's not true and doesn't deserve to be addressed clearly and honestly.
Snip:
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 (voluntary) 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.
As a member of the top-level group, Fernando was granted a Top Secret security clearance and given access to highly sensitive information.
Fernando, professional State Department staff noted, seemed an awkward selection for the group and spurred concern when an ABC News reporter inquired about him in 2011.
"We must protect the secretary's and under secretary's name, as well as the integrity of the board. I think it's important to get down to the bottom of this before there's any response," Jamie Mannina, a State Department official, wrote in an August 15, 2011, email obtained by the conservative group Citizens United and released to CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/h...index.html
=====================
Fernando resigned from the Board two days after the ABC inquiry into his appointment, citing pressing professional obligations.
I tend to believe if there was evidence of corruption, wrong-doing, or security breach associated with the appointment, the media would have been all over it and not let it drop 5 years ago.
But, that's not a given and if it gets brushed off as "just another smear by the right with no basis in fact" or "everybody did it" and Clinton doesn't address the appointment with specific facts, her trustworthiness in the eyes of voters will only continue to drop, understandably.