Trump appears to be benefitting directly from Dakota Access Pipeline - Polidicks

[quote] Donald Trump’s close financial ties to [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/energy"]Energy[/URL] Transfer Partners, operators of the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline, have been laid bare, with the presidential candidate invested in the company and receiving more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from its chief executive. Trump’s [URL="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2838696-Trump-2016-Financial-Disclosure.html"]financial disclosure forms[/URL] show the Republican nominee has between $500,000 and $1m invested in [URL="http://www.energytransfer.com/default.aspx"]Energy Transfer Partners[/URL], with a further $500,000 to $1m holding in Phillips 66, which will have a 25% stake in the Dakota Access project once completed. The information was disclosed in Trump’s monthly filings to the Federal Election Commission, which requires candidates to disclose their campaign finance information on a regular basis. The financial relationship runs both ways. Kelcy Warren, chief executive of Energy Transfer Partners, has given $103,000 to elect Trump and handed over a further $66,800 to the Republican National Committee since the property developer secured the GOP’s presidential nomination.[/quote] [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/26/donald-trump-dakota-access-pipeline-investment-energy-transfer-partners[/URL] Special interests ain't got a hold on him! Also Clinton had contributions from them too so yeah.

Wait, I'm confused. I understand that there are protests around the Pipeline, and it is important to know what special interests Trump could have, but I thought that Trump didn't have anything to do with the fact the Pipeline is still going ahead?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51371212]Wait, I'm confused. I understand that there are protests around the Pipeline, and it is important to know what special interests Trump could have, but I thought that Trump didn't have anything to do with the fact the Pipeline is still going ahead?[/QUOTE] Well, it's in kind of a weird state. But this just solidifies that there's almost no chance of it being stopped now.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51371223]Well, it's in kind of a weird state. But this just solidifies that here's almost no chance of it being stopped[/QUOTE] Ah, now I can see why that is a problem.

clearest cut conflict of interest case in modern history and because the republicans control the swamp theyre going to ignore it all

[QUOTE=Sableye;51371228]clearest cut conflict of interest case in modern history and because the republicans control the swamp theyre going to ignore it all[/QUOTE] Probably is is that Clinton got money from them too, so this pipeline appears to have never been in danger.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51371239]Probably is is that Clinton got money from them too, so this pipeline appears to have never been in danger.[/QUOTE] Well, Clinton is also the kind of person to turn against those interests if massive public opinion demands it. So it is possible, kind of like how she abandoned the TPP

I am not impressed by this reporting. Investing in oil right now is a smart move whether it's politically motivated or not. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama+Clinton held shares in oil given how things are at the moment. It's a highly lucrative market.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51371228]clearest cut conflict of interest case in modern history and because the republicans control the swamp theyre going to ignore it all[/QUOTE] How is this a conflict of interest? Unless I've missed something, Trump hasn't promised anything to the DAPL project. He's just received money from them in campaign funds and has smartly invested in ND oil projects. Even if it were, it's not the most clear cut case since Clinton has been doing pay-for-play speeches around the world since she's been in the Obama administration.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51371563]How is this a conflict of interest? Unless I've missed something, Trump hasn't promised anything to the DAPL project. He's just received money from them in campaign funds and has smartly invested in ND oil projects. Even if it were, it's not the most clear cut case since Clinton has been doing pay-for-play speeches around the world since she's been in the Obama administration.[/QUOTE] So, stopping the oil pipeline would cause direct monetary harm to his donators and to his investments. How is it not conflict of interest? The thing about taking money from corporations is that either you promise them favors under the table, or you'll keep their interests in mind if you want to stay on their good side. Corporate donations don't come without strings attached unless the donations are made completely anonymously or something.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51371546]Investing in oil right now is a smart move whether it's politically motivated or not.[/QUOTE] Alberta would like to talk with you.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;51374852]So, stopping the oil pipeline would cause direct monetary harm to his donators and to his investments. How is it not conflict of interest? The thing about taking money from corporations is that either you promise them favors under the table, or you'll keep their interests in mind if you want to stay on their good side. Corporate donations don't come without strings attached unless the donations are made completely anonymously or something.[/QUOTE] So basically what youre telling me, is that a politician is incapable of investing money in any business without it being a conflict of interest? Yea no. Unless Trump makes a direct decision in favor of DAPL, its not a conflict of interest. Even if he does, you have no way to prove that his decision was influenced by said money. The Clinton foundation has been doing this for years and has gotten off scot free.