2 ms·

Seem to be 2 camps here: 1. dismiss this as a tenuous connection which stems mainly from the fact that Lobbying firms have many big clients 2. grant this connec

by bplatta 10y ago

Seem to be 2 camps here: 1. dismiss this as a tenuous connection which stems mainly from the fact that Lobbying firms have many big clients 2. grant this connection deserves some attention and perhaps some explanation For me, I think the author has some thoughts that are bleeding through . But I don't think its necessarily fair to judge an article mainly on its author's history (though an undeniable factor). While granting this is the nature of a lobby firm, it does seem odd they would agree to representing Sberbank. We're talking John Podesta (Clinton campaign chairman) -> Tony Podesta (CEO Podesta Group) -> Sberbank (Podesta Group client). Is the latter connection really not cause for suspicion?

saalweachter 10y ago
The tricky thing is that it could be a cause for suspicion, but you could also read it other ways. Before John Podestra was the campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton, he was the Counselor to Barack Obama. Before that, he was the founder of the Center for American Progress (a left-wing think tank). Before that, Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff. Before that, Deputy Chief of Staff, Assistant to the President, and a senior advisor. Which is to say, he has been a big part of the Democratic Party / progressive movement for a long time. And before that, he co-founded a lobbying group, the Podesta Group, with his brother Tony Podesta, who still runs the Group. So, do I think that a giant bank / nefarious Russian secret agency is likely retaining the Podesta Group because it was founded and still run by the brother of a powerful and influential member of the Democratic Party, who has served in several Democratic administrations and is likely to serve in future ones? Yeah, totally. And it's probably worth being aware of the potential chain of influence and corruption -- client to lobbyist, lobbyist to advisor, advisor to politician -- but I find it far more likely that John Podesta is in Hillary's campaign (and potentially, future administration) because he's a good, useful guy who gets the right stuff done, rather than that he's there as some sort of corruption-conduit, proof (PROOF!) of Hillary Clinton's unworthiness.

by bplatta 10y ago

saalweachter 10y ago

The tricky thing is that it could be a cause for suspicion, but you could also read it other ways. Before John Podestra was the campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton, he was the Counselor to Barack Obama. Before that, he was the founder of the Center for American Progress (a left-wing think tank). Before that, Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff. Before that, Deputy Chief of Staff, Assistant to the President, and a senior advisor. Which is to say, he has been a big part of the Democratic Party / progressive movement for a long time. And before that, he co-founded a lobbying group, the Podesta Group, with his brother Tony Podesta, who still runs the Group. So, do I think that a giant bank / nefarious Russian secret agency is likely retaining the Podesta Group because it was founded and still run by the brother of a powerful and influential member of the Democratic Party, who has served in several Democratic administrations and is likely to serve in future ones? Yeah, totally. And it's probably worth being aware of the potential chain of influence and corruption -- client to lobbyist, lobbyist to advisor, advisor to politician -- but I find it far more likely that John Podesta is in Hillary's campaign (and potentially, future administration) because he's a good, useful guy who gets the right stuff done, rather than that he's there as some sort of corruption-conduit, proof (PROOF!) of Hillary Clinton's unworthiness.