64
65

Statement On Clinton Foundation CEO Admitting Donors Got Special Treatment At State (donaldjtrump.com)

Dragofireheart が 投稿

全 35 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]AutoModerator[M] [スコア非表示] stickied comment (0子コメント)

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

  • Do not call other users trolls, morons, children, or anything else clever you may think of. Personal attacks, whether explicit or implicit, are not permitted.

  • Do not accuse other users of being shills. If you believe that a user is a shill, the proper conduct is to report the user or send us a modmail.

  • In general, don't be a jerk. Don't bait people, don't use hate speech, etc. Attack ideas, not users.

  • Do not downvote comments because you disagree with them, and be willing to upvote quality comments whether you agree with the opinions held or not.

Incivility results in escalating bans from the subreddit. If you see uncivil comments, please report them and do not reply with incivility of your own.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]SorryToSayItBut [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DONNA SHALALA: “First of all there is no question there were phone calls made to get appointments for people but Mohammad Yunus, a Nobel Laureate. Melinda Gates? These are people any Secretary of State would have seen, courtesy appointments.”

MITCHELL: “What about business people?”

SHALALA: “There were also business people. No question. I don't see evidence that there was policy decisions made as a result of that other than courtesy appointments. And people in public life are used to doing that kind of -- making courtesy appointments for people. I certainly did it as Secretary with requests from Republicans in Congress so I don't find it unusual. We have to be careful that it's not linked to policy decisions as opposed to simply seeing prominent people that ask for appointments.”

[–]PikachuSquarepants [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That all seems pretty innocuous. It'd almost be rude to not meet with people who donated to you. Hillary runs contests where if you donate you get a chance to meet her. Is that pay for play too?

[–]SorryToSayItBut [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Also, the Gates family donates to many people and organizations. They are also fairly important people with connections. Should a politician refuse to meet them? What if they can do some good?

[–]dancemart [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It is amazing how Trump can come out with a statement that says the exact opposite of what the clip says and people will buy it.

These are people any Secretary of State would have seen, courtesy appointments.

Meaning that they are people that are influential enough that any Secretary of State would see as a courtesy.

[–]currently___working [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

SHALALA: “There were also business people. No question. I don't see evidence that there was policy decisions made as a result of that other than courtesy appointments. And people in public life are used to doing that kind of -- making courtesy appointments for people. I certainly did it as Secretary with requests from Republicans in Congress so I don't find it unusual. We have to be careful that it's not linked to policy decisions as opposed to simply seeing prominent people that ask for appointments.”

[–]RoundLakeBoy [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

I'll believe it when it comes from a better source.

[–]TavishGauss [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Of course donors tried to get "special access". It's what Trump has been doing for YEARS.

Whether or not they got what they asked for is the real question. So far, we have no emails showing policy decisions linked to Clinton donors, and we have the Florida AG dropping investigation of Trump U after a donation bribe.

[–]Kingsgirl [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

We do have a fattttttt long list of donors who were then appointed to key government positions...

[–]EditorialComplex [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Donors to the DNC, not to Hillary Clinton. That's a completely different thing. That would also be on Obama, not Clinton, given that Obama is the one who, you know, appoints things.

It's also... pretty weak in terms of scandals, given that it's not a secret that both parties do it. You want to staff your bureau with loyal party members.

[–]proggieus [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

nope-

Donors to the foundation

[–]EditorialComplex [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You are talking about two different things. The recent DNC leaks showed DNC donors. The AP investigation was CF donors getting State meetings. (Ignoring that pretty much all of said meetings were with people State officials should be meeting with).

[–]proggieus [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

like this guy?

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

[–]EditorialComplex [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

1) That is not a "key government position." An ambassador or high-ranking member of a bureau like State or Interior is a "key government position." Fernando was appointed to essentially a think tank committee.

2) Said committee's purpose was to get a wide variety of perspectives for dealing with nuclear security. Fernando's experience with the computer systems used in high frequency trading gave him a cybersecurity perspective, and he has since gone on to do significant cybersecurity work.

3) This was not revealed in the recent leaks. This is also one person, not a "fat long list."

[–]johnthebold2 [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

So nothing ever came of the meetings but just being polite is now a crime.

[–]rubbingalcoholic [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

and "courtesy appointments," like clinton's favorite stock trader who got appointed to a sensitive intelligence board, which gave him insider access to market information before news broke.

yeah, go ahead. downvote me!

[–]y4udothat [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Well it has been debunked pretty thoroughly

The IASB also deals with cyber security in the financial markets and Raj was a high frequency trader and a cyber security expert.

ABC ran a story about him without doing their research.

Here's a board report on cyber security.

Here's Raj's bio from his company.

Here's a board member calling his expertise an asset.

He's served on other foreign policy boards.

The IASB's charter mentions it requires a balance of backgrounds.

[–]PeaceInSilence [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/sweet-e-mails-shed-light-clinton-donor-named-to-board/

Fernando, in 2009 the CEO of Chopper Trading — a company trading in a variety of financial markets — was apparently concerned that his resume alone would not qualify him for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board.

“In a nutshell, I would like to get on the International Security Advisory Board. Everybody on that board is a top-level defense expert, yet I feel I can add a lot to the group,” Fernando wrote in a 2009 email as he was pressing his contacts at the State Department for the appointment.

“I have two professors from Northwestern and one from (the) University of Chicago who are international security experts and are getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field.”

Fernando, whose Sri Lankan parents are immigrants to the U.S. also noted in that email that the board’s charter calls for “demographic diversity.”

In a 2009 email, Fernando also stressed that he was studying up in an email to Abedin. “In addition to my previous experience listed in my resume, I have been meeting with professionals from Northwestern, University of Chicago and Yale for the past six months.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316560323/Fernando-Reines09042012emailchain

Couldn’t he have landed a spot on the President’s Physical Fitness Council?

[–]Chibooms [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Would you care to link to the State emails released asking for a stall on the story, the emails of the State staffers laughing over his qualifications, and Raj subsequently resigning a day later?

[–]y4udothat [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Do your own damn homework.

I backed my point up with evidence.

[–]blackbrosinwhitehoes [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

One twitter quote, him serving on other boards, and his bio aren't evidence that he belongs on that board, friend.

From the report you posted:

a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide the Department of State with a continuing source of independent insight, advice and innovation on scientific, military, diplomatic, political, and public diplomacy aspects of arms control, disarmament, international security, and nonproliferation.

Funny. I don't see high frequency stock exploiters listed anywhere.

[–]Chibooms [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yawn. No need to. They were in the released emails.

[–]Chibooms [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Are you aware the board member you cite calling his expertise an asset did not actually serve on the IASB with Raj? Their tenures were separate by more than a year.

Are you aware Raj personally sent emails lobbying for the job? Are you aware as part of these emails he cites that he has been briefed by two expert professors on the subjects? I mean that is just silly to say "hey I'm qualified because these two professors are teaching me what I need to know"?

[–]y4udothat [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

How does one lobbying for a position make you less qualified?

And someone with exp on the board vouched for him.

Even if you're correct, and I'm too lazy to actually verify the dates, it's still someone who knows what the board does vouching for the man.

Don't people usually weigh references when hiring?

[–]TheTelephone [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I was really hoping this issue got brought up, again. How did HRC's campaign explain this one away? I forget.