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?
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?