6 ms·

Is this really the most interesting thing in the Panama Papers touching the Clintons? If I'm reading this right, there's a well-known group of lobbyists/Washin

Is this really the most interesting thing in the Panama Papers touching the Clintons? If I'm reading this right, there's a well-known group of lobbyists/Washington insiders (the Podestra brothers) with ties to the Clintons and Obama, and the new revelation is that the lobbying firm is also retained by Russia's biggest bank? (As opposed to, being retained by the US's biggest bank?) Does anyone else find that weak-sauce?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
xlm1717 11y ago
They don't just have ties, John Podesta is Clinton's campaign chairman. And the Podestas aren't just lobbying for Russia's biggest bank. As the article states, the majority shareholder in Sberbank is the Russian Central Bank. From the Wikipedia page on Sberbank of Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sberbank_of_Russia#Ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sberbank_of_Russia#Ownership): "The majority shareholder of Sberbank is the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, owning 50%+1 voting share of Sberbank's voting shares." Effectively, the Russian Central Bank controls Sberbank, but ostensibly Sberbank is a private institution. The Podesta Group registered as a lobbyist for Sberbank, which effectively gives the Russian Central Bank a lobbyist in Washington. If the Russian Central Bank had registered directly with the Podesta Group, as the article states the Podesta Group would have to register as agents of the Russian government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The wikipedia page on the Foreign Agents Registration Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac...) states: "...[requires] that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity" disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances. The purpose is to facilitate "evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons."" Arguably, the Podesta Group is not facilitating evaluation of statements its making on behalf of Sberbank, and by extension the Russian Central Bank, because it registered as a lobbyist for a bank controlled by a state-owned bank. The Russians suffered heavy sanctions recently. It doesn't stretch the imagination that the Podesta Group received money from Russia to lobby Washington to drop those sanctions. As the article states towards the end, if Clinton wins the election, John Podesta stands to gain a position of power in a Clinton administration. If John Podesta benefited from money provided by a foreign government (again, Sberbank is controlled by the Russian Central Bank), then that's a relationship the Clinton campaign needs to explain.
- darawk 11y ago
  What is the revelation here though? It seems to me that there are two primary data points in this article: - Podesta group lobbies for Sberbank - Sberbank is owned by the Russian government Neither of these things were revealed by the Panama papers, and neither of these things were hidden by any of the parties involved. Sberbank is transparent about its ownership by the Russian government, and the Podesta Group registered as its agent of its own accord prior to the leak. If this were going on in the shadows, maybe there'd be something here, and I grant you that it's slightly unsettling that they have access to such a powerful lobbying firm. But isn't that sort of the point of running a lobbying firm? You lobby for who hires you, and the politicians you lobby are aware of that and take what you have to say with the appropriate grains of salt.
  - clort 11y ago
    > Neither of these things were revealed by the Panama papers are you sure? The article says that Almost lost among the many revelations is the fact that Russia’s biggest bank uses The Podesta Group as its lobbyist in Washington, D.C. so I wonder if you have a reference to back your statement? Also, you say > Sberbank is owned by the Russian government but this is not the point of the article. They are saying that Sberbank is controlled by the Russian government, which is subtly different.
    - darawk 11y ago
      From the article: "As reported at the end of March, the Podesta Group registered with the U.S. Government as a lobbyist for Sberbank, as required by law" And are those things different? Maybe Russian corporate law is different than it is in the US, but owning 51% of a company generally gives you control of that company, unless there are weird share structures like non-voting shares a la Google. But generally speaking, majority ownership and control are synonymous.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    Sberbank is owned by the Russian government. It's not the fact that Sberbank is simply "owned" by the Russian government that should be of interest; its what Sberbank does for the Russian government. And it is these activities that the recent leaks have shed significant light on.
tmaly 11y ago
I think an info graphic showing the connection to Clinton would have been easier to digest for most people. The article just does not seem to make a compelling case by putting a big picture of Hillary Clinton on the front.
kbenson 11y ago
That is exactly what I was thinking after reading it. That's the "connection"? I imaging that if you count connections like this, almost every politician in Washington has only two or three degrees of separation from every large institution in the world.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  Yet some connections are more important -- and less "random" -- than others.
SloopJon 11y ago
Didn't one of the leakers say something like, "Wait for what is coming next," when it comes to American people of interest? It's not surprising that some articles seem like they're reaching if the leakers are holding back.
kafkaesq 11y ago
The new revelation is that the lobbying firm is also retained by Russia's biggest bank? As opposed to, being retained by the US's biggest bank? Russia isn't like the U.S.; and Sberbank isn't simply a "big bank." That's why this isn't "weak sauce."

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

xlm1717 11y ago

They don't just have ties, John Podesta is Clinton's campaign chairman. And the Podestas aren't just lobbying for Russia's biggest bank. As the article states, the majority shareholder in Sberbank is the Russian Central Bank. From the Wikipedia page on Sberbank of Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sberbank_of_Russia#Ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sberbank_of_Russia#Ownership): "The majority shareholder of Sberbank is the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, owning 50%+1 voting share of Sberbank's voting shares." Effectively, the Russian Central Bank controls Sberbank, but ostensibly Sberbank is a private institution. The Podesta Group registered as a lobbyist for Sberbank, which effectively gives the Russian Central Bank a lobbyist in Washington. If the Russian Central Bank had registered directly with the Podesta Group, as the article states the Podesta Group would have to register as agents of the Russian government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The wikipedia page on the Foreign Agents Registration Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac...) states: "...[requires] that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity" disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances. The purpose is to facilitate "evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons."" Arguably, the Podesta Group is not facilitating evaluation of statements its making on behalf of Sberbank, and by extension the Russian Central Bank, because it registered as a lobbyist for a bank controlled by a state-owned bank. The Russians suffered heavy sanctions recently. It doesn't stretch the imagination that the Podesta Group received money from Russia to lobby Washington to drop those sanctions. As the article states towards the end, if Clinton wins the election, John Podesta stands to gain a position of power in a Clinton administration. If John Podesta benefited from money provided by a foreign government (again, Sberbank is controlled by the Russian Central Bank), then that's a relationship the Clinton campaign needs to explain.

darawk 11y ago
What is the revelation here though? It seems to me that there are two primary data points in this article: - Podesta group lobbies for Sberbank - Sberbank is owned by the Russian government Neither of these things were revealed by the Panama papers, and neither of these things were hidden by any of the parties involved. Sberbank is transparent about its ownership by the Russian government, and the Podesta Group registered as its agent of its own accord prior to the leak. If this were going on in the shadows, maybe there'd be something here, and I grant you that it's slightly unsettling that they have access to such a powerful lobbying firm. But isn't that sort of the point of running a lobbying firm? You lobby for who hires you, and the politicians you lobby are aware of that and take what you have to say with the appropriate grains of salt.
- clort 11y ago
  > Neither of these things were revealed by the Panama papers are you sure? The article says that Almost lost among the many revelations is the fact that Russia’s biggest bank uses The Podesta Group as its lobbyist in Washington, D.C. so I wonder if you have a reference to back your statement? Also, you say > Sberbank is owned by the Russian government but this is not the point of the article. They are saying that Sberbank is controlled by the Russian government, which is subtly different.
  - darawk 11y ago
    From the article: "As reported at the end of March, the Podesta Group registered with the U.S. Government as a lobbyist for Sberbank, as required by law" And are those things different? Maybe Russian corporate law is different than it is in the US, but owning 51% of a company generally gives you control of that company, unless there are weird share structures like non-voting shares a la Google. But generally speaking, majority ownership and control are synonymous.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  Sberbank is owned by the Russian government. It's not the fact that Sberbank is simply "owned" by the Russian government that should be of interest; its what Sberbank does for the Russian government. And it is these activities that the recent leaks have shed significant light on.

tmaly 11y ago

I think an info graphic showing the connection to Clinton would have been easier to digest for most people. The article just does not seem to make a compelling case by putting a big picture of Hillary Clinton on the front.

kbenson 11y ago

That is exactly what I was thinking after reading it. That's the "connection"? I imaging that if you count connections like this, almost every politician in Washington has only two or three degrees of separation from every large institution in the world.

kafkaesq 11y ago
Yet some connections are more important -- and less "random" -- than others.

SloopJon 11y ago

Didn't one of the leakers say something like, "Wait for what is coming next," when it comes to American people of interest? It's not surprising that some articles seem like they're reaching if the leakers are holding back.

kafkaesq 11y ago

The new revelation is that the lobbying firm is also retained by Russia's biggest bank? As opposed to, being retained by the US's biggest bank? Russia isn't like the U.S.; and Sberbank isn't simply a "big bank." That's why this isn't "weak sauce."