Hillary Clinton accepts money for speeches from banks interested in the XL pipeline.

[JDPriestly]

What is her view on that pipeline?

WASHINGTON -- Two Canadian banks tightly connected to promoting the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in the United States either fully or partially paid for eight speeches made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the period not long before she announced her campaign for president. Those speeches put more than $1.6 million in the Democratic candidate's pocket.

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and TD Bank were both primary sponsors of paid Clinton speeches in 2014 and early 2015, although only the former appears on the financial disclosure form she filed May 15. According to that document, CIBC paid Clinton $150,000 for a speech she gave in Whistler, British Columbia, on Jan. 22, 2015.

Clinton reported that another five speeches she gave across Canada were paid for by tinePublic Inc., a promotional company known for hosting speeches by world leaders and celebrities. Another speech was reported as paid for by the think tank Canada 2020, while yet another speech was reportedly funded by the Vancouver Board of Trade. But a review of invitations, press releases and media reports for those seven other speeches reveals that they, too, were either sponsored by or directly involved the two banks.

Both banks have financial ties to TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, and have advocated for a massive increase in pipeline capacity, including construction of Keystone. Further, Gordon Giffin, a CIBC board member and onetime U.S. ambassador to Canada, is a former lobbyist for TransCanada and was a contributions bundler for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/31/hillary-clinton-speeches-keystone_n_7463108.html

Please read the entire article at the link and consider whether you think the banks are trying to influence Hillary or whether she supports the pipeline.

I think this is an important issue, and Hillary has, as far as I know, not recently said where she stands on it. This and the TPP are important issues to me. Let's see whether Hillary expresses her views on them.

[Enthusiast]

1. I'm disappointed to hear this. Hillary doesn't recognize this oil must be left in the ground?

Hillary Hillary Hillary!

[PADemD]

2. I'd like to know what was in those speeches.

[PADemD]

3. Hillary Clinton in Canada

She avoided questions about the pipeline by acknowledging that she had worked with the project as Secretary of State, but went to say that she, “Can’t comment any further on that because it is still an ongoing process.”

Videos for either of speeches are not currently available but will be posted when they are.

http://hillaryspeeches.com/2014/03/08/hillary-clinton-in-canada/

[marym625]

6. snark much?

Why such angst?

Personally, I find anyone with that kind of money, taking more money from supporters of bad policy and environmental projects, inexcusable. Absolutely no reason she has to accept these jobs. Not like she has to go against her morals to feed the kids

Additionally, the "no comment" on the pipeline and the TPP is a cop out. A cowards way out

[ScreamingMeemie]

7. Turns out, not much...

[marym625]

8. Oh how weird!

I was on the jury but I received no notification of the decision. I wonder if my vote was even counted.

Thanks for the heads up!

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. .

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attacks.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 1, 2015, 07:30 AM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Gee, another person who just got here and is blasting away at everything that moves. Either a sockpuppet or a newbie who needs to learn to be at least semi-civil. Either way, hide it.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yeeeeeaaahhh, this "idiot" votes to hide.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Somebody defending Hillary? This must not be allowed.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Fuck off troll.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This poster might like winners, but this is not a winning post. More of a whining post.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Shut up, idiots? I don't think so. Hide.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[bigwillq]

10. Juror #3 should not be a juror.

I don't mind the "Leave It Alone", but the biased comment should eliminate that person from being a juror.

[marym625]

12. I agree

I won't pretend I have bias. But when it comes to juries, I do my best to actually vote on the content and not who it supports or doesn't. Just yesterday I voted to hide a post that was giving snark to one of the posters here I find reprehensible. But, I had to leave my feelings out of it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

14. Tons of scales covering some eyes around here, says Juror #2.

[marym625]

11. nope! I'm not on there

WTF? How bizarre. I actually voted to hide but more because of the trolly idea. The post count and nothing in the journal is a tip off for me

Thanks for posting this. Interesting comments

[Cerridwen]

5. World Affairs Council of Oregon; Academic Partnerships, Dallas, TX...

Just returning the cherry picking of organizations listed on the financial statement. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HillaryClintonFinancialDisclosure2015.pdf

World Affairs Council of Oregon;
Academic Partnerships, Dallas, TX;
Institute of Scrap Recycling, Las Vegas, NV;
Let's Talk Entertainment, San Jose, CA;
California Medical Association (via satellite);
National Council for Behavioral Healthcare, Washington, DC;
Innovation Arts and Entertainment, Austin, TX;
Cisco, Las Vegas, NV;
Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Washington, DC;
Massachusetts Conference For Women, Boston, MA;
Watermark's Silicon Valley Conference for Women, Santa Clara, CA;
American Camping Association, New York Section, Atlantic City, NJ...

There are quite a few listed. I'll leave the full transcription to someone else.

You know, I have a copy of a book by Aleister Crowley on my bookshelves. If someone wanted to paint me a "satanist" or something equally evil, they could focus on that book and ignore my 3 copies of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. They could focus on all my books about women's spirituality and the various types of paganism I've read/studied over the years. Or there are all my sci-fi books and my copies of "the Classics," and so on. I even have some romances in there.

I've often wondered how I'd be reported in the media based on my eclectic selection of reading materials. It would all depend on how they wanted to portray me.

Cherry picking works that way. Focus on a specific target to create an image then ignore anything that might put it in context and/or disrupt the image being created.

[JoePhilly]

13. Excellent response.

[JDPriestly]

15. You have a point. On the other hand, there is what is called the "appearance of corruption"

when you accept money from an organization that wishes to influence you.

To be fair, the questions are: Did she accept this speech gig knowing that the bank was interested in the pipeline? Did she consider how accepting a large amount of money from that bank would make her look as a candidate? How it might raise questions about her position on the pipeline? How it might raise questions about corruption on her part or on the part of her donors in general? How does her accepting such large payments for speeches affect her ability to act independently and make independent decisions? Is there a perception on the part of those who pay her that they are buying access?

Do you know what Don Siegelman is serving prison time for?

The donations in Don Siegelman's case were not for his speeches or his campaign but as I understand it to sponsor a campaign for a state lottery. Will Hillary's appointments be somehow connected to some of the corporations and individuals who have paid her these magnificent sums for speeches?

I think that the information in this article is one of the facts that we all need to consider when voting for a nominee to run for the presidency in 2016. Citizens United will loom over the 2016 election.

While the fact that Hillary accepted a huge speaking fee via or from a bank with an alleged interest in the XL pipeline is not decisive, I am supporting Bernie Sanders in part to convey the message to corporate America that their largesse to candidates and all the airtime and ads that their money buys will not influence my vote. With Bernie Sanders there is no appearance, no inkling of corporate influence or the possibility of that kind of corruption.

Not that corporations are in and of themselves bad or evil institutions. To the contrary. They are an efficient and effective form of business organization among other such forms. But the large corporations have too great an influence on the cultural, political and social life in America. It's gotten to the point it is sick. And if Hillary agreed with me on that, she might approach her speechmaking in a different way. Same for Bill Clinton.

This bit of information is one more thing to think about when measuring the candidates' qualifications for office. Honesty and integrity and freedom from the influence of the rich and powerful is at this time very important to me.

[Cerridwen]

16. I think those questions should be asked of each group she spoke to...

I think those questions should be asked of each group she spoke to and not just the ones we don't trust/approve of or that don't fit the narrative the reliable media is trying to create.

In that spirit,

Let's answer each of your questions...

Did she accept this speech gig knowing that the bank was interested in the pipeline? Did she consider how accepting a large amount of money from that bank would make her look as a candidate? How it might raise questions about her position on the pipeline? How it might raise questions about corruption on her part or on the part of her donors in general? How does her accepting such large payments for speeches affect her ability to act independently and make independent decisions? Is there a perception on the part of those who pay her that they are buying access?


for the organizations I listed:

World Affairs Council of Oregon;
Academic Partnerships, Dallas, TX;
Institute of Scrap Recycling, Las Vegas, NV;
Let's Talk Entertainment, San Jose, CA;
California Medical Association (via satellite);
National Council for Behavioral Healthcare, Washington, DC;
Innovation Arts and Entertainment, Austin, TX;
Cisco, Las Vegas, NV;
Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Washington, DC;
Massachusetts Conference For Women, Boston, MA;
Watermark's Silicon Valley Conference for Women, Santa Clara, CA;
American Camping Association, New York Section, Atlantic City, NJ

...while checking what they paid as well.

If not, it gives the appearance of cherry picking organizations to create a narrative that has little to do with speaking engagements.

[JDPriestly]

17. Cherry picking or pointing to those specific organizations that might want to influence

her?

Cherry-picking from a list of donors to determine which of them are large corporations with controversial issues riding on the future president's decisions?

That is not cherry-picking. That is being careful and aware of potential for corruption.

In a classroom of 100 students, one student pays the teacher to grade his/her test answers leniently. It isn't cherry-picking to point to that one student and not to the others.

Corruption is cheating. I'm not saying that Hillary's magnificent payment for speaking to that bank is cheating. I'm saying that we need to watch the donor lists of all candidates for the presidency in 2016 to be sure that we don't get a president whose donors expect favors.

We have seen enough leniency with the banks on the part of the Obama administration over the past years. And they donated with largesse to him.

As I said, I'm voting for Bernie in part because he is running in greatest part on donations from donors who are not seeking influence.

Corporate influence in elections and Citizens United are big issues for me. I'm looking for a candidate who will be free to stand up to the corporations and say this far and no further.

[Cerridwen]

18. I disagree with you. You disagree with me. I won't change your mind. You won't change mine.

I disagree with you. You disagree with me. I won't change your mind. You won't change mine.

I've spent the past couple of decades decoding and sometimes reporting how the media does its spin and creates the narratives it wants. You're not going to change my mind about that at this late date. I'm also aware of how often the media uses "the Clintons" as surrogate punching bags against Democrats and other liberals. It's been happening for most of my adult and political life.

Interesting you mention Citizens United. You might want to check out what the organization Citizens United is and what that case before the Supreme Court was. Going after, attacking, cherry picking, re-framing, and creating narratives about "the Clintons" that began as part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy***" and has become a bi-partisan endeavor that has been perfected over 25 or so years.

***"the vast right-wing conspiracy" Hillary Clinton, 1998: The Today Show, here's the background on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy

Here's a link and a copy and paste of my post about CU:

citizens united is a group who wanted to run an anti-Hillary "documentary," hit piece

prior to the 2008 election in violation of FEC campaign laws and you think Hillary has just now decided she's against the cu ruling?

When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. The issue before the Justices was a narrow one. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law prohibited corporations from running television commercials for or against Presidential candidates for thirty days before primaries. During that period, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had wanted to run a documentary, as a cable video on demand, called “Hillary: The Movie,” which was critical of Hillary Clinton. The F.E.C. had prohibited the broadcast under McCain-Feingold, and Citizens United had challenged the decision. There did not seem to be a lot riding on the outcome. After all, how many nonprofits wanted to run documentaries about Presidential candidates, using relatively obscure technologies, just before elections?

<snip>

Bossie decided to transform Citizens United into a movie studio, which would produce conservative documentaries. In the period leading up to the 2008 election, the Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton was an irresistible subject, given Bossie’s long history of opposing her and her husband. “Hillary: The Movie” was typical of the Citizens United oeuvre. It included news footage, spooky music, and a series of interviews with dedicated and articulate partisans. (“She’s driven by the power, she’s driven to get the power, that is the driving force in her life,” Bay Buchanan, the activist and the sister of Pat Buchanan, said. “She’s deceitful, she’ll make up any story, lie about anything, as long as it serves her purposes of the moment, and the American people are going to catch on to it,” Dick Morris, the estranged former Clinton Administration adviser, said. “ ‘Liar’ is a good one,” Ann Coulter said.)

Bossie wanted “Hillary: The Movie” to come out in late 2007, to tie it to the Presidential election in the way that Moore had pegged “Fahrenheit 9/11” to the previous race. A cable company offered, at a cost of $1.2 million to Citizens United, to make “Hillary” available for free to viewers, on video on demand. Bossie also engineered a small run of the movie in theatres, but his real priorities were television advertisements and video on demand. Over the years, Bossie had become familiar with federal election law, so he decided he needed a lawyer, and hired James Bopp, Jr. (emphasis added)


From an article at the New Yorker:

Annals of Law May 21, 2012 Issue

Money Unlimited: How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision.
By Jeffrey Toobin

I suggest many people on DU take the time to remind themselves of what citizens united is and what it is they were trying and succeeded in doing.

I would also suggest that people make themselves familiar with cu's background fighting against Democrats, (specifically the Clintons) and women's rights, (specifically abortion rights) history and the various operatives within that organization. It's quite enlightening to see how abortion rights have been used to attack Democrats, progressives, liberals, and women.

[JDPriestly]

19. I am very well informed about what gave rise to the Citizens United decisions and

the Clinton role in it.

I am also very aware of the attacks on the Clintons. It is all the more surprising to me that they make themselves so vulnerable to these attacks by earning exorbitant amounts of money for speeches to organizations including some who might wish favors from them in the future (not saying they would want favors just saying the corporations might want favors).

In fact one of the reasons I am supporting Bernie Sanders is that I am aware of the extreme vitriol that Republicans throw at the Clintons. It is way beyond rational, but it is a reality. I fear the entire campaign would be spent fighting off ridiculous Republican accusations if Hillary is our candidate.

I think Hillary wants to do a lot for women, and as a woman, I really appreciate that. I think she can accomplish more through the Clinton Foundation with regard to women and women's rights than she could in the White House where she will be preoccupied with so many other issues.

I really like Bernie Sanders and his social views. He has a very clean record, free from corruption. His constituents like him. He supports single payer. I have many reasons for supporting him.

I do not think that Hillary has a great personality for running for office. Bernie has a tremendous, generous sense of humor and does not get offended when personally insulted. He just laughs it off and shrugs. (Obama was the same.) It is hard to change deep personality traits, but Hillary feels hurt when insulted unfairly and it shows. I know she has had to deal with a lot of unfair criticism, but that's the way it is.

I was talking to one of my sisters who had the same impression from Hillary that I have. She said, Hillary reminds her of one of those "leaders" in college. Girls who always make the Honor Society, the good grades, get the football players and the top positions in student government and are really snooty. Hillary kind of gives off that vibe. It is hard to explain, but she does. She has always been the "leader." She is a winner. She does not project a lot of genuine humility even when she tries. And she has not shown good judgment in her votes for many things. She gloated over the death of Khaddafi. He was a very cruel man, but still, he had family and was loved by some. Death is something that should never give great joy to anyone, never be a source of pleasure or victory or gloating. It suggests bad character when a person visibly demonstrates glee at death. We may all be guilty of that kind of cruel pleasure at times. But a prominent person such as Hillary shows poor judgment when she allows that cruel side of herself to be shown publicly.

I know that on paper, Hillary looks like a fairly good candidate. But I cannot in good conscience vote for her. I am in California. The Democrat will win in California no matter what, without my vote. I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary. Sorry. I'm going to work and vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary.