Thedoctored imageappears to shows an Australian soldier murdering a child. It follows a report last week that found Australian special forces had committed at least 39 unlawful killings in Afghanistan.
The United Nations Development Program faces several allegations of fraud and corruption linked to the multibillion-dollar Global Environment Facility, according to documents seen by the Financial Times.
A copy of a draft report by UNDP Office of Audit and Investigations, dated November 2020, described “financial anomalies” worth millions of dollars in UNDP’s portfolio of GEF-funded projects around the world.
The report highlighted issues including signs of “fraudulent activity” in two country offices and “suspicions of collusion between different project managers” in another, without naming countries.
“Problems identified by the audit could seriously compromise the achievement of the audited entity’s objectives,” the report said.
The FEM was established in 1991 as part of the World Bank to help tackle environmental challenges such as deforestation, species conservation and pollution. It has since split to become an independent organization and has dispersed more than $ 21 billion in 170 countries, including $ 7 billion in projects managed by UNDP.
The audit of UNDP GEF-funded projects – which covers 2018 and 2019 and is the first of its kind since 2013 – comes against a backdrop of growing concern on the part of some donor countries over management issues and control at UNDP.
A investigation through Foreign police in 2019, published whistleblower accounts alleging the embezzlement of millions of dollars in a UNDP-managed GEF project in Russia. Twelve donor countries – including the United States, France, Australia and Japan – have since called for an independent review of the management of this project by UNDP, according to a letter seen by the Financial Times.
There are landslides and then there are landslides. There are lopsided votes and then there are lopsided votes. There are egregious examples of vote manipulation and then there are really egregious examples of vote manipulation. What surfaced during hearings in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on November 25, 2020 may set the standard for electoral outrageousness. An expert testifying to the Pennsylvania Senate flagged a batch of ballots that recorded some 570,000 votes for Joe Biden and only 3,200 for Donald Trump.
A convicted felon caught up in a pair of stinging political exposés has visited the Obama White House 342 times, according to the administration’s records, including several visits to the Obama family’s residence and one, in October of last year, to the Oval Office.
Robert Creamer was caught on one hidden-camera video discussing ways to commit large-scale voter fraud, and talking in another about paying liberal activists to start fights and otherwise disrupt Donald Trump rallies.
Democracy Partners, the community organizing firm that until Tuesday employed Creamer, works hand-in-hand with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Creamer, whose wife is 9-term Illinois Democratic congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, took 47 private meetings with Obama or his senior staff, the White House’s official visitor records records show, including one just four months ago.
He says on one bombshell video that the Clinton campaign has daily phone contact with Democracy Partners and is aware of his work.
That work has included sending agents into Trump rallies to provoke violence, the videos – produced by the conservative group Project Veritas Action – show.
One of those provocateurs was a 69-year-old woman who was paid to attend a rally where she later claimed to have been assaulted.
‘She was one of our activists,’ Creamer subcontractor Scott Foval said on camera, unaware he was being recorded.
“Well boys, I guess we’re just gonna have to go in. Fix your bibs.”
“Whadaya think, Sheriff? Things gonna get messy?”
“Boys, when you’re a-starin down a barbecue outfit, and the ribs start flyin’ and the dip starts coming at you in bowlfuls — tomato-based, vinegar-based, it don’t matter none — it gets messy and then some.”
“Anythin’ else?”
“Well, keep you eye out for the coleslaw. When we’re in coleslaw range, it’s anyone’s game.”
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has determined that Italy must pay for the dependents of migrants even if they do not live in the European Union.
EU judges stated that Italian legislation which allows Italians to claim benefits for dependents living abroad but which bars non-EU migrants from doing so was contrary to EU law. The court, therefore, ruled that non-EU citizens with residency permits or who are long-term residents are entitled to allowances for their families living outside of the bloc.
The decision was a result of a challenge between the National Social Security Institute and two non-European Union citizens, one from Sri Lanka and another from Pakistan, who lived and worked legally in Italy and have families living in their home countries, Italian newspaper Il Giornale reports.
Time’s Up, the organization set up to fight sexual harassment in the work place in the wake of the #MeToo movement, spent the bulk of its donations of executive salaries and only a fraction on legal costs to help victims in its first year, records show.
Tax filings show that the organization, which was founded by Hollywood celebrities and is made up from the Time’s Up Foundation and Time’s Up Now Inc., raised $3,670,219 in 2018 in its first year of operation.
The defining moment in the “rules for thee but not for me” ethos of the ruling class during the COVID-19 pandemic may have come when Neil Ferguson, the epidemiologist behind Britain’s lockdown policy, met with his married girlfriend in defiance of the restrictions he promoted. Eager to threaten the common people with penalties if they failed to socially distance, he saw no reason to inconvenience himself the same way—although at least he conceded that propriety required him to resign his government post when the trysts were discovered in May.
“He has peculiarly breached his own guidelines, and for an intelligent man I find that very hard to believe,” marveled Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a prominent member of the ruling Conservative Party. “It risks undermining the Government’s lockdown message.”
Well, yes. But like all too many officials, Ferguson obviously never thought he’d be caught violating rules that he’d never intended be applied to himself. As we’ve since learned, Ferguson’s above-the-law attitude is common among those who feel entitled to write regulations and impose penalties on others for violating them.
That attitude is obvious in Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, whose wife and daughter visited properties in Florida and Wisconsin even as he ordered state residents to stay at home except for “essential” activities. “My official duties have nothing to do with my family,” Pritzker huffed when a reporter called him out about his family’s wanderings. “So I’m not going to answer that question. It’s inappropriate, and I find it reprehensible.”
Reprehensible might more accurately describe government officials who penalize the common folk for behavior in which they themselves indulge. The word also could be applied to officials and hangers-on who try to leverage their positions for special advantage.
That appears to be what motivated Marc Mallory, husband of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, in the lead-up to Memorial Day weekend. After his wife eased some of the travel restrictions she had imposed on state residents, Mallory invoked his political connections in a failed effort to get his boat in the water ahead of everybody else.
“He jokingly asked if being married to me might move him up,” Whitmer conceded after the offended marina owner described the incident, which he found less than humorous, on social media. “He regrets it,” she added. “I wish it wouldn’t have happened.” She did not clarify whether it was the power play or the marina owner’s public complaint.
For Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, the it moment was a hearty meal at a Maryland restaurant while indoor dining in his own city remained forbidden by his order. “I know some are upset that I dined indoors at a restaurant in Maryland yesterday,” Kenney sniffed on Twitter in August. “I felt the risk was low because the county I visited has had fewer than 800 COVID-19 cases, compared to over 33,000 cases in Philadelphia. Regardless, I understand the frustration.”
A few days later, Eater Philadelphia published a long but incomplete list of restaurants that had permanently closed their doors because of the COVID-19 lockdown. The former owners of those businesses undoubtedly have plenty of frustration to share with the mayor.
“It was clearly a setup,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) complained after a salon owner released video footage of the powerful lawmaker, maskless and getting her hair done, in defiance of the rules in San Francisco. “I take responsibility for falling for a setup by a neighborhood salon I’ve gone to for many years.”
Maybe it was a setup—the salon owner is an open critic of Pelosi and of pandemic restrictions. But a setup would be possible only because the owner could correctly assume the House speaker wouldn’t flinch at violating widely publicized restrictions.
As we’ve seen time and again, such hypocrisy is common. We’re expected to suffer discomfort, economic pain, and emotional distress or else pay fines and even serve jail time. Government officials, meanwhile, take offense when called out for violating the standards they created.
The pandemic will eventually pass, but it will leave behind our memories of arrogant authorities who consider themselves above the concerns of the common people. Long after the virus is gone, those memories should stay with us as a vaccine against future trust in agents of the state.
Conservative author and commentator Candace Owens challenged left-leaning fact-checking site PolitiFact, a partner with Facebook, over a “false” rating — and won.
Not only did PolitiFact remove their “false” rating and retract an article on why Owens’ video was allegedly false, but the site offered an added “correction” admitting their fault.
Owens’ video, which was posted on Nov. 12, offered commentary on the 2020 presidential election, and was captioned, “Joe Biden is literally and legally not the President-elect. So why is the media pretending he is?”
The video was hit with a “false” rating, and, as noted by Owens, theoretically, every single person who shared the post was alerted by Facebook that they had shared “false” content.
The fourth Saturday of November marks the remembrance for people who died as a result of the 1932–33 Holodomor. This was one of the worst genocides in human history, and was distinctly, a man-made famine. The Holodomor was not only a horrifying piece of history due to the genocide, but also the rampant cannibalism among the starving Ukrainian population.
Communist dictator Joseph Stalin, mandated the collectivization of agriculture in 1929. Mobs of Communists seized the means of production by killing and/or expelling farmers, sometimes referred to as Kulaks. Farmers were seen as somewhat wealthier peasants, who owned land and produced the food supply. Once expelled, the victorious revolutionaries were unaware of how to farm properly. This led to the Holodomor and an estimated 7 million people starved to death, although the exact number of dead remains unknown.
When a different viewpoint offends you, try to deplatform it. If that doesn’t work, heckle until the person gives up.
This tried-and-true tactic of campus leftists was adopted by the Chinese Students and Scholars Association at Brandeis University in response to a Nov. 13 event promoted by the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.
According to The Brandeis Hoot, which interviewed participants after the event but didn’t view it live, the event was “Zoombombed multiple times with unknown attendees writing [‘FAKE NEWS’ and ‘Bullshit’] on slides and playing the [Chinese national] anthem.” Most participants had their video turned off, making it impossible to identify the virtual vandals.
A series of stories in major U.S. publications raised questions about what else Mr. Giustra gets from the relationship, beyond the satisfaction of giving back. The stories revolved around uranium and oil assets acquired by companies in which Mr. Giustra was involved. In 2005, he visited Kazakhstan with Mr. Clinton and, soon after, acquired uranium interests in the former Soviet republic. In 2007, he secured the rights to operate one of Colombia’s largest oil fields.
In both instances, Mr. Clinton introduced Mr. Giustra to the president of the country before the asset sales were completed. Mr. Giustra has repeatedly denied that there was any political interference or that he donated to the charity to further his business interests. Though many have tried over the years, no one has produced evidence that it was the Clinton connection that helped to secure the deals. “Brief meet-and-greets and photo-ops with politicians and heads of state are simply that, nothing more or less, and any sophisticated deal maker will attest that it would be naive to believe that a photo-op will secure anything in a large, complex private transaction,” said David Brown, Mr. Giustra’s lawyer, in a written response to questions from The Globe.
Mr. Giustra and his various businesses have been able to weather the scrutiny. In the battleground of public opinion, however, the Clintons have been unable to shake the negative perceptions that stem from their mixing of philanthropy, for-profit business, friendships with wealthy individuals, corporate interests, foreign interests, and politics. Their success in raising astronomical sums of money from Mr. Giustra and scores of others – some $2-billion – has also given Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, one of his best lines of attack in his battle against Hillary Clinton for the White House.
By portraying her as a Washington insider who engages in “pay-to-play” schemes, whereby donors contribute money in exchange for special access and influence, he has been able to cement a public view of Ms. Clinton as a grasping, unethical politician. In September, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that more than 70 per cent of voters – including a majority of Democrats – believe she is “too willing to bend the rules.” In the third televised debate, when moderator Chris Wallace asked Ms. Clinton if she had kept a 2009 promise to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in her dealings with the foundation, Ms. Clinton stumbled: She avoided the question, but defended the foundation as a “world-renowned charity.” If she does not capture the presidency next Tuesday, her failure to counter her rival’s “Crooked Hillary” slur will be one of the root causes of her defeat.
If she hangs on to win, however – and the polls still make her the favourite – close scrutiny of the Clintons’ extensive corporate ties will continue for as long as she’s in the Oval Office. In fact, Hillary Clinton would come to power with stronger ties to the Canadian business elite than any president before her. A Globe examination of Clinton Foundation documents and Bill and Hillary Clinton’s own financial disclosures reveal a web of connections into Bay Street that runs far deeper than Frank Giustra and his immediate circle.
The list of individuals and corporations with whom the Clintons have done business in the 16 years since they left the White House is a long one. The Clinton Foundation counts some of Canada’s best-known corporations – auto parts giant Magna International Inc.; mining company Barrick Gold Corp.; and Toronto-Dominion Bank – among its large donors.
Many wealthy individuals have also supported the charity. To take three examples: Lukas Lundin, chairman of the TSX-listed mining company that bears his name, donated $1-million to $5-million. Another $500,000 to $1-million came from Toronto real estate executive Michael Cooper, whose companies own a collection of prize office properties in Canada, including 50 per cent of Toronto’s Scotia Plaza. TD deputy chairman Frank McKenna, who was Canada’s ambassador to Washington when George W. Bush was president, kicked in $100,000 to $250,000. (The disclosures come in ranges, rather than stating exactly how much an individual donated.)
The Canadian connections
Bill and Hillary Clinton have deep ties with key players in Corporate Canada. Here are some notable executives with links to the couple, many of whom are current or former business associates of Frank Giustra.
Beyond the charity, the Canadian business establishment also played a not-insignificant role in the building of the Clintons’ personal fortune after Bill Clinton’s two terms as president were over.
Though Hillary Clinton was mocked for her claim that she and her husband were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House, the couple was grappling with large debts, such as millions of dollars in unpaid bills from Mr. Clinton’s endless legal fights, including his impeachment in 1998. While Ms. Clinton embarked on her own political career as a U.S. senator in 2000, her husband set about repairing their household finances and cashing in on his postpresidential life, mostly through speech making and book writing that proved extraordinarily lucrative.
Since 2001, the couple has pocketed $117.3-million in speaking fees. Most of that was earned by Bill Clinton and more than 10 per cent of it came from events in Canada, usually sponsored by big-name Canadian companies.
While Ms. Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic primary, Bernie Sanders, criticized her for giving high-priced speeches to major Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, one of the most active financial institutions in procuring the Clintons’ services was TD Bank. Canada’s second-largest bank has sponsored a series of events featuring the Clintons as the star attraction, and from which they earned a seven-figure sum for several days’ work.
In November, 2008, Mr. Clinton earned $525,000 for three speeches in Moncton, Montreal and London, Ont. The following May, he spent two days in Canada, earning another $525,000 for speeches. All of his appearances were at motivational events organized by The Power Within Inc., which produces training programs for the general public and corporations and is sponsored by TD Bank.
Among the Canadian banks, TD has the most at stake in the U.S. market. It ranks among the top 10 retail banks in the United States, with 26,000 employees and a network of 1,300 branches along the East Coast, and it is the largest shareholder in U.S. online broker giant TD Ameritrade. A spokesperson for TD Bank said providing clients with face time and “unique opportunities to engage with diverse views and opinions from well-respected leaders” is a proven crowd pleaser.
But such events are not an effective way to lobby for specific policy changes, executives say. A former TD executive who has worked with both Clintons notes that the bank’s sponsorship of Bill Clinton’s 2008 speaking tour came after Hillary Clinton had been vanquished in the 2008 Democratic primary by Barack Obama, and it was far from clear what her political future would be. “If you’re looking for a connection between the speeches and what’s happening in this year’s election, it’s not there,” the executive said, “because we’re not that smart.”
TD has not been alone in using the Clintons as a way to gain favour with top customers or inspire employees. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce – whose longest-standing board member, Gordon Giffin, is a long-time ally of the Clintons who raised money for Hillary’s first presidential bid – hired the former secretary of state to make appearances following the publication of her memoir in 2014. Ms. Clinton spoke to a sold-out lunch crowd in Winnipeg on Jan. 21, 2015, and then delivered the keynote address that same evening in Saskatoon, as part of the Global Perspectives series sponsored by CIBC. She earned $470,000 for what were some of her final paid speeches before she announced her run for the presidency.
Ms. Clinton was a “huge draw” based on her global perspective, said a CIBC spokesperson. “Hiring prominent speakers is something we do regularly as a value-add for our clients.”
Agents for the Clintons typically sign up half a dozen corporate sponsors for each event. Clients pay a premium of roughly $100,000 to be the lead sponsor and in return receive an opportunity to share the stage with the Clintons. At one event in Toronto in 2009 where Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush appeared on stage together, marking the latter’s first major public appearance since leaving the White House, Mr. McKenna, the deputy chairman of TD Bank, got to swap stories with them, resulting in the bank getting a mention in The New York Times.
That profile, along with the thrill of being in close proximity to a potential future president or to Mr. Clinton and his considerable star power, is what keeps corporations lining up to hire them.
But the notion that such events offer much opportunity for backroom lobbying of a potential future president is wrong, according to bankers and executives who have been involved with them. At one speech Ms. Clinton gave in Calgary in March, 2014, about 100 people associated with sponsors TD Bank and the Calgary Chamber of Commerce milled about sipping wine and bottled water at a reception before, including Mr. McKenna. There was just enough time to shake her hand and pose for a photo, said one of the attendees. “Within the span of about three seconds, you stood there, you said: ‘Hi. How are you?’ And that was it.”
Still, the speaking events and associated fees are not without controversy. An anti-Clinton book published last year by Peter Schweizer, a Republican activist and speechwriter, attempts to draw links between Hillary Clinton’s rising influence as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 and Bill Clinton’s rising fees. “Most ex-presidents see the demand for their speech-making decline as they move farther away from their time in office. The opposite applies to Bill.”
On the philanthropic side, the lion’s share of the money that the Clintons have raised from their Canadian connections has come not from the Toronto banking community, but through Mr. Giustra and his associates in the resource industry.
Throughout his career, Mr. Giustra, 59, has straddled the world’s of mining and film production. He transformed Vancouver brokerage firm Yorkton Securities Inc. into a major force in the world of international mining in the 1980s. In 1996, he left Yorkton, just as the mining sector was about to crash due to the Bre-X Minerals fraud and tumbling gold prices, and founded independent film company Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.
By 2001, he was focused on mining again, convinced that gold prices were poised for a rebound. He teamed up with Ian Telfer to acquire control of Wheaton River Minerals Ltd., a dormant company valued at $20-million. Four years later, Wheaton merged with Goldcorp Inc., now Canada’s second-largest gold producer. “We both believed that the gold price was about to break out,” Mr. Telfer, chairman of Goldcorp, told The Globe. “Turned out we were right.”
The huge rally in gold and other metals prices helped make both men wealthier than they ever could have imagined during the sector’s dark times. And by the middle of the last decade, Mr. Giustra was turning more of his attention to how he could use his fortune. Around that time that he met Mr. Clinton, of whom he once said: “My money is more effective backing Clinton than any other person I can think of on this planet.”
Through his personal charitable vehicle, the Radcliffe Foundation, Mr. Giustra has donated $66.4-million (Canadian) directly to the Clinton Foundation, ranking him in the top five of all donors. He also drummed up about $20-million in donations from high rollers in the investment community at a lavish 60th birthday party in 2006 for Mr. Clinton. The star-studded bash at the Fairmont Royal York in Toronto included appearances by actor Billy Crystal and singers James Taylor and Sarah McLachlan.
Mr. Giustra did not stop there. The following year, he came up with the idea of creating the Canadian arm of the foundation, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), through which he has contributed a further $35.4-million. Mr. Telfer has contributed $2.3-million to the partnership through his charitable vehicle, Canada Revenue Agency filings show. Mr. Telfer said that he and many others in the mining sector were already supporting philanthropic initiatives; the Clinton Foundation’s work, which takes place in some of the same developing countries in Africa or South America where miners operate, “resonated with many of us in the mining industry.”
Mr. Telfer is part of a network of loyal associates who have profited handsomely from Mr. Giustra’s various mining projects, by buying into one of his shell companies before he rolls in a new set of mining assets. Another is Neil Woodyer, himself a Clinton Foundation donor. The latest venture of the two men is a company called Leagold Mining Corp., which has raised $35-million for acquisitions. Mr. Giustra is on the board and Mr. Woodyer is the chief executive officer, currently on the hunt in Mexico for mining assets.
Mr. Woodyer also donated to the Canadian arm of the Clinton Foundation. Supporting the work of the charity, which focuses its efforts in Latin America and other parts of the developing world, was a no-brainer, he said. While mining companies are good at digging holes, he said, they are not good at the “soft relations,” including long-term social and economic initiatives. “We were not thinking in terms of Washington politics,” Mr. Woodyer said in an interview. “Our involvement has been associated with mining and supporting Frank’s work.”
No matter how pure the intentions of the donors, though, the Clintons’ decision to raise funds from wealthy foreigners has proved to be a persistent thorn in the side of Hillary Clinton in her presidential campaign. Ms. Clinton has stressed she never made decisions as a U.S. senator or secretary of state based on donations to the foundation. But the “unique complication” that the charity would pose for her was anticipated during her Senate confirmation hearings for the cabinet post in 2009. “The Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it could curry favour through a donation,” said then-senator Richard Lugar, a Republican, in calling on the charity to ban all foreign donations.
The foundation did not do so, and Ms. Clinton has paid a political price. One e-mail chain among the tens of thousands hacked from the accounts of Ms. Clinton’s campaign chairman, and released by WikiLeaks, sheds light on the potential for conflicts between Ms. Clinton’s role as a political figure and the charity’s sweeping global activities. The King of Morocco – a country with a spotty record on human rights – agreed to host a Clinton charitable summit in May, 2015, and give $12-million (U.S.), but only if Ms. Clinton attended the event. “This was HRC’s idea,” Huma Abedin, a top aide to Ms. Clinton, says in an e-mail, referring to her boss by her initials. “She created this mess and she knows it.”
Such e-mails – which her campaign has refused to authenticate – have proved embarrassing for her, giving Mr. Trump fodder for his stump speeches and forcing the Clinton Foundation to rethink how it operates. Bill Clinton has promised to put in place new restrictions if his wife wins the election – it would no longer accept donations from foreign countries or corporations and Mr. Clinton would step down from the board.
Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based non-partisan watchdog, said the proposed restrictions are a good first step, but more needs to be done to address potential conflicts of interest, including disclosing any meetings between White House staff and donors to the charity. “You want to make sure that your government is above reproach and is doing things in the best interests of taxpayers, and not in the best interests of political donors or family friends,” Mr. Amey said.
For his part, Mr. Giustra has said that in the event of a Hillary Clinton victory, he would spin off the Canadian charity into an independent entity, with a new name and no ties to the Clinton Foundation. It would “bring on new partners and funders” and Mr. Clinton would no longer be invited to travel on Mr. Giustra’s private jet, according to Mr. Brown, the financier’s lawyer.
“Without exaggeration, the charity’s life-saving work is Mr. Giustra’s life’s work, is very important and will continue on, regardless of sensationalistic headlines in the media, the usual drama of any particular election cycle or the identity of its participants.”
A formal separation between the charities of Mr. Giustra and the Clintons might, in fact, simplify matters for Mr. Giustra. Even relatively small business deals have been made more complicated by his close relationship with them.
Several years ago, for instance, a small publicly-traded company that he backed, Cannon Point Resources Ltd., gave $100,000 worth of stock options to the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership.
Then, last year, Cannon Point merged with Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., a Vancouver company that has been locked in a legal battle with the U.S. federal Environmental Protection Agency. At stake is a potential treasure buried in granite-like rocks along a remote stretch of southwestern Alaska. The property, known as Pebble, contains not only copper and silver riches but at least 70 million ounces, or $90-billion (U.S.) worth, of gold. But it’s unclear whether anyone will ever be allowed to extract it: The area is also home to the world’s largest population of sockeye salmon.
The EPA has blocked the Pebble project, citing risks to spawning grounds in a nearby watershed. Northern Dynasty has accused the agency of misconduct by vetoing the project before undertaking any scientific inquiry. The fate of the mine could be decided on the watch of the next president.
What if that president is Hillary Clinton? Would the Giustra connection help the miners? “To even suggest that our client would seek to engage in political interference or intervention in connection with a government regulated approval process is beyond reckless and absurd,” said Mr. Brown.
But Mr. Giustra is taking absolutely no chances. He has already sold most of his shares in Northern Dynasty and plans to sell the rest soon, before the next U.S. president is sworn into office in January, his lawyer said.
“Although he continues to like the asset, think highly of management and the company’s prospects,” said Mr. Brown, “our client feels his continued share ownership will be distracting to the company.”
The Clintons in Canada
Bill and Hillary Clinton have been paid a total of $12.4-million (U.S.) for giving speeches in Canada since leaving the White House in 2000. The following is a comprehensive list of those events, sourced from disclosure documents.
Events are listed in chronological order, and can be filtered by speaker, province or year. (Only one filter can be applied at a time. Click or tap the arrows for additional information.)Speaker All Bill Clinton Hillary Clinton Province All Alberta British Columbia Manitoba New Brunswick Newfoundland and Labrador Nova Scotia Northwest Territories Nunavut Ontario Prince Edward Island Quebec Saskatchewan Yukon Year All 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
SPEAKER
EVENT HOST
DATE
LOCATION
FEE (U.S. DOLLARS)
Bill Clinton
Jim Pattison Group
March 9, 2001
Vancouver, B.C.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
Morgan Firestone Foundation
May 2, 2001
Oakville, Ont.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
Canadian Society for Yad Vashem
June 25, 2001
Toronto, Ont.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
SFX Sports Group
Aug. 20, 2001
Aurora, Ont.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
Calgary Renaissance
Nov. 8, 2001
Calgary, Alta.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
Pinpoint Knowledge Mgmt, The Portables
Nov. 9, 2001
Richmond, B.C.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
ORT Montreal
Feb. 18, 2002
Montreal, Que.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
Personal Dynamics
April 5, 2002
Montreal, Que.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
Canadian Hadassah – WIZO
July 29, 2002
Toronto, Ont.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
London Drugs
Nov. 4, 2002
Mississauga, Ont.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
MDM Investments Ltd.
Dec. 9, 2003
Winnipeg, Man.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
Hon. Frank McKenna’s Annual Business Networking Event
May 5, 2004
Wallace, N.S.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
tinePublic Inc.
Oct. 17, 2005
London, Ont.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
Inter’l Centre for Business Information
Oct. 18, 2005
Toronto, Ont.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
Oct. 18, 2005
Toronto, Ont.
$350,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
Oct. 19, 2005
Calgary, Alta.
$300,000
Bill Clinton
Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center
March 5, 2006
Toronto, Ont.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
March 6, 2006
Ottawa, Ont.
$270,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
March 7, 2006
Montreal, Que.
$200,000
Bill Clinton
tinePublic Inc.
March 8, 2006
Saskatoon, Sask.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
tinePublic Inc.
March 9, 2006
Edmonton, Alta.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
McCreath Communications
March 9, 2006
Regina, Sask.
$125,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
March 10, 2006
Vancouver, B.C.
$300,000
Bill Clinton
World Leaders Forum
May 15, 2006
Toronto, Ont.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
tinePublic Inc.
July 26, 2006
Halifax, N.S.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
Hon. Frank McKenna’s Annual Business Networking Event
July 27, 2006
Wallace, N.S.
$75,000
Bill Clinton
Ardee’s Festival Inc.
Sept. 6, 2006
Saint John, N.B.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
Jewish National Fund – Montreal
Nov. 8, 2006
Ottawa, Ont.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within on behalf of Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund Canada
Nov. 9, 2006
Toronto, Ont.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within on behalf of Que. Breakfast Club
Nov. 9, 2006
Montreal, Que.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
McCreath Communications
Nov. 10, 2006
Kelowna, B.C.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
tinePublic Inc.
Nov. 10, 2006
Victoria, B.C.
$100,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
April 3, 2007
Montreal, Que.
$250,000
Bill Clinton
Nemex Network Corp.
June 20, 2007
Quebec City, Que.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
United Parcel Service
June 20, 2007
Toronto, Ont.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
Nov. 13, 2007
Toronto, Ont.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
Nov. 13, 2007
Toronto, Ont.
$200,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
Nov. 13, 2007
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
Economic Club of Toronto
April 25, 2008
Toronto, Ont.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
Green Living Enterprises
April 25, 2008
Toronto, Ont.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
June 20, 2008
Edmonton, Alta.
$525,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
Oct. 16, 2008
Toronto, Ont.
$200,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
Nov. 25, 2008
Moncton, N.B.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
Nov. 25, 2008
Montreal, Que.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
Nov. 26, 2008
London, Ont.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
May 28, 2009
Halifax, N.S.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
May 28, 2009
St. John’s, Nfld.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
May 29, 2009
Toronto, Ont.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
Canadian National Exhibition
Aug. 29, 2009
Toronto, Ont.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
TD Bank on behalf of ONEXONE charity
Sept. 13, 2009
Toronto, Ont.
$150,000
Bill Clinton
TD Bank
Nov. 3, 2009
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates*
$175,000
Bill Clinton
The Essex Region Conservation Foundation
April 15, 2010
Windsor, Ont.
$155,000
Bill Clinton
The Vancouver Board of Trade
May 20, 2010
Vancouver, B.C.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
May 20, 2010
Calgary, Alta.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
The Power Within Inc.
Oct. 29, 2010
Montreal, Que.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
University of New Brunswick
May 11, 2011
Fredericton, N.B.
$140,000
Bill Clinton
St. Francis Xavier University
May 11, 2011
Antigonish, N.S.
$140,000
Bill Clinton
Yum! Restaurants International
May 27, 2011
Vancouver, B.C.
$160,000
Bill Clinton
City of Surrey, B.C.
Oct. 20, 2011
Surrey, B.C.
$175,000
Bill Clinton
Ontario Chamber of Commerce
Nov. 21, 2011
Toronto, Ont.
$175,000
Hillary Clinton
The Vancouver Board of Trade
March 5, 2014
Vancouver, B.C.
$275,500
Hillary Clinton
tinePublic Inc.
March 6, 2014
Calgary, Alta.
$225,500
Hillary Clinton
Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal
March 18, 2014
Montreal, Que.
$275,000
Bill Clinton
Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center
May 12, 2014
Toronto, Ont.
$275,000
Hillary Clinton
tinePublic Inc.
June 16, 2014
Toronto, Ont.
$150,000
Hillary Clinton
tinePublic Inc.
June 18, 2014
Edmonton, Alta.
$100,000
Bill Clinton
Hogan Lovells US LLP
June 20, 2014
Toronto, Ont.
$225,000
Hillary Clinton
Canada 2020
Oct. 6, 2014
Ottawa, Ont.
$275,500
Hillary Clinton
tinePublic Inc.
Jan. 21, 2015
Winnipeg, Man.
$267,500
Hillary Clinton
tinePublic Inc.
Jan. 21, 2015
Saskatoon, Sask.
$202,500
Hillary Clinton
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
Jan. 22, 2015
Whistler, B.C.
$150,000
Sources: Office of Government Ethics Financial Disclosures, 2000-2015; Executive Branch Public Financial Disclosure Reports / *The only event listed here that did not take place in Canada
China on Friday introduced up to 212 percent export duty on Australian wine. This would be a devastating blow to Australia’s wine industry as China makes up for about 40 percent of country’s total wine exports. Australia’s wine growers are the latest target of Chinese bullying this year. Other Australian exports recently targeted by Beijing include barley, coal, seafood, and timber.
Stein Recount announces major legal win in Wisconsin, will proceed with groundbreaking examination of critical voting machine software
Former Green Party Presidential nominee Jill Stein announced today a major victory for election integrity in litigation arising from the Stein 2016 presidential recount. She celebrated the final defeat in Wisconsin’s courts of voting machine vendor’s attempts to impose a gag rule on the Stein 2016 recount, which clears the way for Stein’s designated expert J. Alex Halderman to finally inspect the code that runs many voting machines used in Wisconsin and across the U.S., and disclose conclusions about the software’s reliability and accuracy to the public.
“This is a major win for voters everywhere,” Stein noted. “The courts have affirmed that the largest manufacturer of voting machines in the US, Election Systems & Software, has no right to suppress the findings of our upcoming inspection of key election software. That inspection will bring much needed transparency and accountability to the software that counts our votes. This win affirms that corporations cannot shield the voting software we rely on from public scrutiny.”
The federal lobbying watchdog says she has referred three files to the RCMP for criminal investigation since the beginning of the pandemic in a year that has seen a significant uptick in lobbying.
“Since April 2020, I have opened 16 preliminary assessments, and currently have five ongoing investigations. Also since April, I have referred three investigation files to the RCMP. As of today, there are 11 files with the RCMP,” Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger revealed to members of the ethics committee Friday.
Multiple religious congregations have sued the state of California over its COVID-19 restrictions, arguing that they broach the First Amendment’s protections on the ability to worship freely. Strip clubs have also gone to court, arguing the limitations curb their right to free speech.
The BBC identified 21 clinics that said they would conduct ‘hymen repair’ surgery, costing between £1,500 and £3,000, with seven confirming “virginity testing” for between £150 and £300.
United Airlines Holdings Inc., reportedly began operating charter flights on Friday to better position Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for distribution once the inoculation is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
United will fly the chartered planes between Brussels International Airport and Chicago O’Hare International Airport as part of the “first mass air shipment of a vaccine,” supported by the FAA, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Last week, Johns Hopkins University published a now-deleted article explaining a study examining the effects of the novel coronavirus on United States death totals using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Genevieve Briand, the assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Johns Hopkins, determined, in the study, that there have been 1.7 million deaths in the U.S. between March 2020 and September 2020, 12% (or roughly 200,000) of which have been coronavirus-related.
Briand posits that the only way to understand the significance of the U.S. coronavirus death rate is by comparing it to the number of total deaths in the country.
According to Briand, who compared the total deaths per age category from both before and after the onset of the global pandemic, the death rate of older people stayed the same before and after coronavirus.
“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” wrote Briand.
She also noted that between 50,000 and 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after the emergence of the virus, meaning that, according to her analysis, coronavirus has had no effect on the percentage of total deaths of older people, nor has it increased the total number of deaths in the category.
These results contradict the way most people see the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, which disproportionately affects the elderly population.
Briand believes, after reviewing the numbers, that coronavirus deaths are being over-exaggerated. After seeing that in 2020, coronavirus-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart disease — the leading cause of death in the U.S. for many years prior — Briand began to suspect that the coronavirus death toll figure may be misleading.
Briand found that “the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19,” according to the original JHU newsletter.
“If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn’t give us a choice but to point to some misclassification,” said Briand.
“If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn’t give us a choice but to point to some misclassification,” said Briand.
“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” she continued.
Several days after removing the article, Johns Hopkins University tweeted that the article, “A closer look at U.S. deaths to COVID-19,” was deleted because “the article was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”
“We regret that this article may have contributed to the spread of misinformation about COVID-19,” tweeted the institution.
“There are many of us who support Van and his endeavors to save live music; he is an inspiration,” Clapton said according to Variety. “We must stand up and be counted because we need to find a way out of this mess. The alternative is not worth thinking about. Live music might never recover.”
As part of a seven year plan to raise CPP premiums in order to provide for greater CPP benefits decades from now, CPP premium rates for all workers are to rise by 3.8 per cent in 2021. The amount of income subject to premiums is also rising by 5.3 per cent. This means for workers earning $60,000 or more, both the employer and employee will see more than a 9 per cent increase in their CPP premiums.
In an eight-count complaint filed Friday in the D.C. District Court, Carter Page seeks damages of no less than $75 million from the U.S. government, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and individuals responsible for obtaining four illegal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act orders against Page.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s attempt to call out the Conservative Party for promoting misinformation about COVID-19 stumbled tonight when PMO staff sent out a draft statement that itself contained misinformation.
Trudeau and Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole had a call scheduled for this evening. The usual practice after these calls is for both parties to put out a statement — a “readout” — describing what was discussed during the call.
Shortly after 4:30 p.m. this evening, the Prime Minister’s Office issued just such a note saying Trudeau “raised concerns around COVID-19 misinformation being promoted by Conservative members of Parliament, given Conservative MPs recently downplayed the deaths of Canadians in Alberta due to COVID-19 and compared COVID-19 to the flu.”
The call with O’Toole was not scheduled to take place until 5:15 p.m.
Five Feet of Fury
Sassy Wire 