New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

But without the annoying soundtrack or Bob Costas.

 

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

 

Wait.....what???......another imagined scandal???? Those poor Clinton's are always getting picked on....

 

Have any of you people ever worked in an organization that formed committees and advisory panels?

Did he make a bunch of money by being on this panel? Did he win business contracts by being on this panel?

I understand there is deep hatred of HRC, but do you think it's possible that HRC or her close staff members said "this guy is smart, knows digital technology in a way the others don't, and would be a good, different type of voice to add to the mix."

Certainly, you can attack the judgment of such an addition, but good lord, every committee I've ever seen has these kinds of things, where someone in charge adds an oddball pick for whatever reason, after working with them in a different context. In fact, most leaders I've seen in the workplace have favorites they'll actually sprinkle into any context just because the leader trusts their intellect/work/ability to not be an ass and not f things up.

If you can show he benefitted immensely by serving the country in this way, then I think we have a more interesting story.

Sorry -- I know this will label me an apologist. But once again, I just fail to see an inferno of controversy here, at this time. I think the fact that she ignored repeated directives from State to cease the private email server is a bigger deal by far, in terms of judgement and professionalism, etc.

 

I mean, do you want to see a much worse pick for an important panel? Do you want me to go through how the Bush Administration handled their "Bioethics" advisory group? LOL.

They booted out Elizabeth Blackburn, one of the top biologists on the planet, in favor of... wait for it... Ben Carson, LOL! Just because Carson shared GWB's faith and would play a very conservative line, science be damned.

I'm not saying one bonehead committee choice deserves another. I'm just saying these things happen constantly in government (and in business, etc, etc.)

 

https://www.newikis.com/en/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

 

Good to see that president Obama's "administration of transparency" (as he called it) filtered down to all levels of his staff.

 

This was my reaction as well, though I couldn't have expressed it as well. He sounds like a diversity pick to me -- someone from a very different background who would bring a different perspective and 'shake things up a bit.' It's kinda standard to do this. At the top of the oligarchy, there is an attitude that smart insiders can mix-and-match and do anything. Successful Google exec? You'd probably do just fine in a high position at Exxon. Great CFO? Try your hand leading IT. We need more than this to satisfy me that there's nepotism here or undue influence.

 

Something I am disappointed about. I think Obama may have even been sincere at the time, but he's been terrible for transparency.

 

Don't you think that if he was such a no-brainer to add to the panel that the rest of the panel should have been given a heads-up on these magnificent skills he had. That way when it was discovered he was a huge donor to the Clinton Foundation they would be prepared when approached by the media about a seemingly odd fit to the panel?

Again..... Clinton's put themselves in a situation that looks bad...... Guys like you come running to their defense. Wouldn't it be just nice if they were just more responsible acting people?

 

Oh please, a Chicago trader will be added on your academic recruiting committee, after all, he is smart and he hires people all the time. I won't tell you beforehand or explain to you why.

 

1. I never said, "no brainer." Please read what I wrote. It's kind of the opposite. I just don't see, at this point, why it is crooked. Again, what was the direct benefit to this guy to be on this committee?

2. I'm trying to logically respond to something you've posted. If that's "running to defend" somebody or something, that's your interpretation, but I dispute that.

What I see, for years, is people falling all over themselves to pin thing on certain politicians, and often this is not accompanied by logic or careful thought.

If the dude benefitted monetarily from this appointment, after donating to the Clinton foundation, that's really shady. Otherwise, the worst you can say is that, via nepotism, HRC wasted the dude's time and made fellow members of the group shrug their shoulders and say "okay, whatever."

And michecon, FWIW, yes, I've seen appointments made by trustees of my university to important panels and committees that are almost *exactly* like what you stated. I'm like "WTF are you putting your friends on my important internal committee for?" And sometimes they are a breath of fresh air. Sometimes they are useless windbags. But in each case, the trustees seemed to think diversity of perspective (or sometimes diversity of background, including ethnicity) would be helpful to the cause.

Again, stick to the state dept. statements about her refusing their directives. That's pretty interesting. But you're not doing well at sifting through her emails and finding stunning correlations like "she appointed someone she knew well to a committee!!1!" LOL.

Sorry, I need to go rush to the defense of some other liberal politician. I'm nearly out of breath here.

 

I run a 501c3 Charity and I have a day job. We do have a board and we have committees on the Charity. I do not accept donations from people that I do business with in my day job or allow those people to serve on committees or the board. It's called a conflict of interest. This likely guy got on the panel to up his credibility in the business world. The Clintons did it to get paid....

 

How many people here knew that the International Security Advisory Board even existed prior to clicking into this thread?

I KNOW ENOUGH TO GET OUTRAGED BY IT! TRUMP 2016!

 

What is the personal benefit to Mr Fernando’s here? Do board members get paid? Other benefits?

 

Well, change your university.

 

Again....why go the shady route to get him on the committee? What you say could be true about him being a great fit. But don't act like the Clinton's don't know how they are viewed by a lot of people. He's a donor to their foundation and on the surface is an odd fit, they should have taken extra measures to make sure the rest of the committee agreed he was such a great fit.

Look I tried to support Trump but he just can't stop saying careless stupid ****, so I'm done with him. When you gonna get there with the Hillbilly Mob know as the Clintons?

 

Not nearly as many who knew you'd have a lame response to it, that's for sure.

 

With all due respect, you clearly need an education about how a university works, beyond being a student.