The Ed Show: Clinton Was PAID MILLIONS BY BANKS Backing Keystone Pipeline

[Segami]

- "Banks behind Hillary Clinton's Canadian speeches really want the Keystone Pipeline"

- "Canadian Imperial Bank Of Commerce and TD Bank were both primary sponsors of paid Clinton speeches in 2014 and early 2015."

- "Both Banks have financial ties to Transcanada....and have allocated for a massive increase in pipeline capacity, including construction of Keystone.."

- Gordon Giffin, a CIBC board member and onetime U.S. Ambassador to Canada, is a former lobbyist to Transcanada and was a 'contributions bundler' for Clinton's 2008 Presidential campaign."

[Koinos]

1. K & R

[peacebird]

2. Well, DOH! Who'ld have thunk it.

[roguevalley]

14. don't worry. her supporters will show up soon with their

shovels. Check the greatest home page threads. IOWA LOVES HILLARY! Maybe they do but its cheaper to see Bernie a real grass roots man than her, miss bank of 2015

[Laser102]

31. I saw the same show. Alberta has already put the pipeline on hold.

Get your facts before you shoot your mouth off. Why should she jump into this when the pipeline is on hold by the Canadian govt.? Oh, I know. You don't want her to take money from banks. You know she won't do anything for it so it must be that you feel sorry for big banks. Take them for everything they are worth and give nothing in return. Poor banks.

[roguevalley]

49. I have removed my response to your remarks because I was

livid at the lack of courtesy given to me. Since you have to live with it, I won't be adding to it by reacting to your bad manners. I am unwilling to get into slagging matches with people anymore.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. That's why Keystone has been approved...

...oh...wait a minute...

[workinclasszero]

4. Those pesky facts again

Darn it

[Wilms]

13. Obama vetoed it.

I suppose Hillary gets another shot at it if we let her into the White House.

[rhett o rick]

18. Logical fallacy. The fact that it hasn't been approved isn't related to Clinton

taking money.

[RufusTFirefly]

24. Why perpetuate this canard? The President DID NOT veto the pipeline

He vetoed a bill that would've wrested power away from the Executive branch and given final authority for the decision to Congress. Thanks to the President's veto, that authority remains with the State Department. No final decision on the pipeline has yet been made.

[bahrbearian]

27. Those pesky facts again

Oh Darn

[MannyGoldstein]

28. One of the grandest cases of willful ignorance ever seen

This claim that Obama vetoed KXL.

[RufusTFirefly]

37. Yet it's so simple a four-year-old child could understand it

"Run out and find me a four-year-old child"



I get it!

[Laser102]

32. Except by Alberta. Pesky facts.

[hifiguy]

5. At least they didn't get it.

But the appearances are, shall we say, a bit on the stinky side. Make that a LOT on the stinky side.

[upaloopa]

9. Only if you don't like Hillary.

You aren't going to get your guy in the general by dumping on Hillary.
At some point he will drop out and you will be left with crickets.

[roguevalley]

16. okay dad :D

[rhett o rick]

19. So do you despute the facts of the OP or don't you care?

It's a rhetorical question. Of course you don't care what she has done or how she stands on the issues.

Sen Sanders may not be able to overcome the billion plus dollars expected to be invested by the billionaires or the snubbing of the oligarch-media, but it's a little early to gloat. He will have given the Populist Movement a tremendous boast to fight the dominance of Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Gang.

Vote Sen Sanders, he isn't beholden to the billionaires.

[NanceGreggs]

6. Hillary was paid MILLIONS to do what?

To give speeches that people were willing to pay to attend?

[HereSince1628]

10. I imagine she has signed contracts saying so...

[NanceGreggs]

12. Saying what? n/t

[HereSince1628]

15. Saying she was paid to speak.

You feeling suspicious or something?

[DanTex]

23. To talk about world events, geopolitics, etc.

Clinton is a big "get", so she gets paid a lot of money, by anyone who wants to impress their clients by having her headline some corporate event that they are organizing. The whole insinuation that a few $200K speeches sponsored by a group of companies including banks that have done business with TransCanada is some kind of bribery pay-for-play thing is beyond absurd.

[upaloopa]

7. Wow Hillary is running to be leader of Canada too

She was paid to speak. Not campaign contributions.

[rhett o rick]

21. Exactly, the money went directly into her bank for her personal wealth

which has grown considerably in the last 15 years. Her and Bill are comfortable in the 1%. In fact I think almost in the 0.01%.

[HereSince1628]

8. But, she was paid just to talk!

And I'm sure she can prove that with the contracts.

[NanceGreggs]

25. Okay, spill.

Exactly WHAT do you think the speaking engagement contracts said?

"I, Hillary Clinton, do hereby pledge that in exchange for being paid to appear at a speaking engagement, I will do the bidding of those who hired me for said engagement without question."

Seriously???

This "they expect something in return" bullshit is beyond laughable. Let's assume that the CIBC or TD "expected" HRC to do something favourable to their interests. Let's further assume that she doesn't - because why would she?

Would the banks have legal recourse? Could they go to the courts and sue on the basis of, "We thought we were buying this politician, and now she's refusing to play ball?"

Maybe they could go to the MSM: "We understood that by paying HRC for 'speaking engagements' we would get something in return - and we didn't."

Such accusations would only serve one purpose - they would go to prove that Hillary, despite the "expectations" of those who thought they were buying her favours, WAS NOT BOUGHT when all was said and done - the exact opposite of what they'd hope to prove.

The bullshit meter goes to 11 on this type of utter nonsense.

[HereSince1628]

26. You are being very suspicious. It makes my bullshit meter go to 12...

Because the promoters would have incurred costs and obligations to hold these events, because HRC would have incurred costs the promoters and HRC are adults and would likely act as responsible adults do...I think there were contracts between the parties about these engagements.

[NanceGreggs]

38. I sincerely apologize ...

... if I misread your intent.

Yes, I am "suspicious" these days on DU. Way too many people promoting this "they expect something in return" bullshit - as though expecting something (assuming they were) and actually getting something go hand-in-glove.

I have no doubt there were contracts signed. And I doubt those contracts included anything beyond an agreement to appear at a speaking engagement for a set amount of remuneration for that speech.

But some here would have you believe that such a contract included an unspoken agreement to "deliver" something beyond a simple speech.

[Major Hogwash]

53. "Talk is cheap."

Haven't you ever heard that before?

[HereSince1628]

54. 200K per speech doesn't seem too cheap.

[Major Hogwash]

55. That's peanuts!

Popcorn, cracker jacks!!

Com'on, officer, a girl has the right to make a living.

Geez, where have I heard that before?

[earthside]

11. The Clintons love money.

I worked hard for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

They have changed -- they have gone completely 'Washington'.

The Hillaryites ought to wake-up and smell the coffee: the Clintons have become corporate elitists.

[KMOD]

17. I'm a Hill Raiser.

Not a Hillaryite.

I will work hard for HRC in 2016.

[DanTex]

20. Translation: Hillary gave some speeches at events partially sponsored by two of the largest banks

in Canada, which have TransCanada as clients (along with thousands of other large companies).

[NanceGreggs]

29. I live in Canada ...

... and have been a CIBC client for forty years.

They sent out letters to all of us stating that they have "HRC in the bag" - nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Jesus, the shite people on the internetz are willing to swallow whole if it plays into their conspiracy theories.

[Logical]

22. And the hits just keep on coming! nt

[MissDeeds]

46. +1000

[Jester Messiah]

30. This is what I've been saying. She is bought. Owned lock stock & barrel. [nt]

[juajen]

39. Bought by whom, exactly

The Clintons would have to need mony to be "bought", right.

(Exuse my punctuation, I have some sticking keys)

[NanceGreggs]

41. How is she "bought"?

Please enlighten us all as to how compensation paid to attend at a speaking engagement "buys" the speaker.

Explain to us how HRC - or anyone else, for that matter - is somehow bound to serve the interests of those who promoted a speaking event?

Describe for us how - if HRC doesn't "deliver" on what the promoters thought they were "buying" - they go about pursuing her for that failure to deliver.

"CIBC and Toronto-Dominion Bank of Canada v Hillary Clinton: Whereas the Plaintiffs were under the impression that the aforesaid HRC would 'see things their way' and didn't, thereby refusing to be bribed as was the intent of the Plaintiffs ..."

[Ford_Prefect]

47. 1.6 million is a lot of reasons to listen. As Dylan said: Money doesn't talk, it swears!

And that's just the money we know about.

[NanceGreggs]

48. So explain how ...

... any amount of money paid for speaking engagements amounts to "favours" being delivered.

She can take the money and not do a damned thing for those who might think they "bought" something. So what's the incentive to deliver anything at all?

To do so would have political (and legal) repercussions. To NOT do so would still mean she has the money-in-hand, and those who were expecting some "quid pro quo" would have no recourse to claim what it is they expected to get.

In fact, claiming that they "expected" something in return that HRC didn't deliver would only serve HER political purposes by casting her as honest and above being bought.

The whole scenario makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. And yet there are those who will buy into that scenario nonetheless.

[Ford_Prefect]

50. In the context of 250 million 1.6 is not much I agree.

I find your insistence that it's only $400,000 more than a bit naive. The Koch brothers talk in terms of 900 million they plan to spend on the 2016 election. They seem to be interested in getting the attention of the Clinton campaign and have a long track record regarding the influence they are purchasing.

I live in North Carolina where Koch money bought the entire state government along with the Chief Justice of the NC supreme court. This resulted in extremely weak rules regarding fracking, among several other Koch projects including gerrymandered voting districts, the dismantling of public schools, and the restructuring of the UNC University system to reflect their disturbing and severely distorted version of Christianity

If the Koch brothers have sent money to Clinton's foundation by any means it is certainly with the expectation of a sympathetic hearing. They only work one way and I have seen it in operation.

You may continue to insist that Hillary is not going to listen to the people with all that money. I appreciate your optimism and wish it represented a future I could believe in. I have seen them up close and they only spend money to get results, no matter the amount. They would not spend the kind of money they have without some idea that it will indeed pay off down the line.

They keep score by dollars, favors done and owed, promises paid for and delivered, and how many people they have in their pockets. They have been working with HRC for some time and believe they know what to expect. If you cannot see the way that wind blows I am sorry for you. They may not have specific promises but you can depend on it that they know which way she will lean when the time comes. It is what they do.

[NanceGreggs]

52. Huh?

Where did I even mention $400,000 - no less "insist" on it?

The OP is about Canadian banks paying HRC for speaking engagements. Maybe they plan on telling Canadian citizens not to vote for Hillary because she won't play ball after all?

Sorry, but your reply isn't making any sense whatsoever.

[Ford_Prefect]

57. My error indeed. You didn't discuss $400,000 let alone insist on it. My apologies on that one.

The 2 Canadian banks are connected to the Koch Brothers development of the Tar Sands and the XL pipeline scheme. This is well documented. They are not the only ones in line to spend money on the Clinton foundation or engage HRC for speaking events in return for the expectation of a favorable hearing down the line. It is very common fundraising practice by many in the political world and not restricted by party or interest.

[NanceGreggs]

60. "in return for the expectation of a favorable hearing down the line."

I will go back to my initial stating of the obvious.

All the "expectations" in the world do not equal a done deal, nor a guarantee of delivery on said "expectations" - as many here would have it. In fact, they amount to less than nothing in the real world.

If I accept your money for a speaking engagement, and you "expect" something in return, I have no reason to deliver on your "expectations".

So whadda ya gonna do about it? Tell the world you thought you bought me, but I didn't get bought? That would only serve to make me look good, and you look like a petulant favours-for-money blackmailer who spent his money for nothing.

This whole "HRC was paid to speak, and therefore she's beholding to those who paid for those speeches" just doesn't hold water.

There are a million ways to skin a political cat - saying "I shelled out money expecting something I didn't get" is simply not one of them.

It reminds me of the pay-for-your-vote schemes a century ago. "I'll pay you five bucks to vote for ___." I always laugh at how many operatives shelled out that money - quickly pocketed by voters who went into the voting booth and voted for the "other guy" anyway.

Some political tricks work - and others don't.

[Ford_Prefect]

61. I guess my short response would have to be:"How do we know she didn't?"

[NanceGreggs]

62. And my short response would be ...

... how do we know anyone didn't do anything?

It all comes down to believing the best or the worst about whoever you like or dislike. It is all conjecture, surmise, supposition, etc., and the conclusion one comes to is about what they want to believe as opposed to what is the truth.

In other words, it's a wash. And discussing it to death persuades no one, and changes no minds.

[olddots]

33. oh picky. picky. picky

[SoapBox]

34. Has HRC clearly stated that she is adamantly opposed to the pipeline?

Yes or no.

That's all I want to know.

And yes, I'm personally opposed to the project.

[L0oniX]

35. I'm sure there's no alterior motives going on with those paid speeches and...

...yep ...I have a slightly used bridge for sale.

[paleotn]

36. money, money money......mooooney!

With the Goldman Girl, it's always all about the money..

[juajen]

40. What do you base that remark on.

They do not need money.

[GoneFishin]

42. Kick.

[newfie11]

43. K&R

No suprise there.

[CTBlueboy]

44. lassiez faire pipline

How long till we hear HRC supporters call for the firing of Ed ?

How dare he report on Lady Hillary in such manner

[dlwickham]

45. how did that work out for the banks though

[azureblue]

51. and here you are again

with yet another in your series of attempts to smear Ms. Clinton. What do these attempts all have in common? stringing together some partially related facts, then throwing all kinds of buzz words, vaporous connections, scare tactics, leaps of logic that would impress Superman, hysteria, and innuendo, in hopes that people will buy your weak shtick.

Admit it. You are a failure at this.

[Cheese Sandwich]

56. It's the ultimate revolving door. Some people have no shame. How much fricking money does she need?

edit: Changed fucking to fricking

[Major Hogwash]

58. She wants ALL the money!

She even went out of the country to get some more!!!

[Joe Turner]

59. I'm sure Hillary will take a principled stand

in favor of the Keystone pipeline.