Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection

Russia isn't like the U.S.; and Sberbank isn't simply a "big bank."

That's why this isn't "weak sauce."

"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_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.

Funds moving through Sberbank are regularly used to support clandestine Russian intelligence operations, while the bank uses its offices abroad as cover for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service or SVR. A NATO counterintelligence official explained that Sberbank, which has outposts in almost two dozen foreign countries, “functions as a sort of arm of the SVR outside Russia, especially because many of its senior employees are ‘former’ Russian intelligence officers.” Inside the country, Sberbank has an equally cosy relationship with the Federal Security Service or FSB, Russia’s powerful domestic intelligence agency.

Which make the question of why the Podestas would choose to take their business a very interesting question indeed.

It's apparently not uncommon for banks or their representatives to deliver money to Clintons, but saying it's a non-huge, non-story sounds like what you would expect from apologist propaganda.

That doesn't bother you?

In simplified form (subtracting a few subordinate clauses here and there):

"Sberbank engaged the Podesta Group to help its image, and specifically to help lift the pain of sanctions placed on Russia, which have caused real pain to the country's financial sector."

Man is obviously insane, needs urgent help.

;-)

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.

As the article itself asks, the main question is why one of Clinton's chief power brokers chose to take their money.

Sanders has won 7 out of the last 8 primaries and yet Clinton, with all her legal baggage and ethical issues, is still the presumed frontrunner.