{"id":1620,"date":"2016-10-11T23:05:20","date_gmt":"2016-10-11T23:05:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cannachronicle.com\/?p=1620"},"modified":"2016-10-11T23:06:03","modified_gmt":"2016-10-11T23:06:03","slug":"in-leaked-speech-clinton-promises-bankers-to-stand-against-pot-legalization-in-all-senses-of-the-word","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannachronicle.com\/2016\/10\/11\/in-leaked-speech-clinton-promises-bankers-to-stand-against-pot-legalization-in-all-senses-of-the-word\/","title":{"rendered":"In Leaked Speech, Clinton Promises Bankers to Stand Against Pot Legalization \u2018In All Senses of the Word\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Originally posted on\u00a0thefreethoughtproject.com<\/a><\/p>\n

\"hillary<\/p>\n

Wikileaks has arguably been the most important thing that has happened to elections, if not the veneer of democracy, in quite a long time. We\u2019ve been able to see the true side of politicians and bureaucrats like never before.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Hillary Clinton, we see a figure beholden to Wall St., working diligently to advance the influence of financial corporations over government policy and taxpayer money. Her mega-donor list<\/span><\/a> is a who\u2019s who of megabanks that also happened to benefit from the TARP government bailout.<\/span><\/p>\n

In return for their money, Clinton gave speeches to Wall St. giants behind closed doors between 2013 and 2015. She told Goldman Sachs she was \u201cfar removed\u201d from ordinary people<\/span><\/a> and that \u201cyou need both a public and a private position.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Clinton has vacillated terribly on the issue of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a gift to her donors but very unpopular to Americans who see it for the fleecing it is. She was for TPP before she was against it \u2013 a familiar descriptive.<\/span><\/p>\n

As Bernie Sanders pointed out during the primary \u2013 where he was efficiently neutralized by the establishment \u2013 the only thing we know about Clinton is that she will be on the side of Wall St.<\/span><\/p>\n

If Clinton supporters believe she will do anything about government\u2019s war on cannabis, they should think again.<\/span><\/p>\n

The good people at Marijuana.com have been studying the leaked emails<\/span><\/a>, and during one of those Wall St. speeches, Clinton expressed a clear opposition to cannabis legalization<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cDuring an on-stage Q & A session with Xerox\u2019s chairman and CEO in March 2014, Clinton used Wall Street terminology to express her opposition to ending cannabis prohibition \u201cin all senses of the word\u201d:<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

URSULA BURNS: So long means thumbs up, short means thumbs down; or long means I support, short means I don\u2019t. I\u2019m going to start with \u2014 I\u2019m going to give you about ten long-shorts.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

SECRETARY CLINTON: Even if you could make money on a short, you can\u2019t answer short.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

URSULA BURNS: You can answer short, but you got to be careful about letting anybody else know that. They will bet against you. So legalization of pot?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

SECRETARY CLINTON: Short in all senses of the word.<\/i>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The exchange with Burns is part of an 80-page document containing the emails of John Podesta, her campaign manager. Campaign staffers have been working diligently to try and scrub embarrassing parts of the speeches, and this was one of them.<\/span><\/p>\n

As Tom Angell points out<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThat the campaign flagged the candidate\u2019s opposition to legalization as a potential problem demonstrates a growing understanding by political operatives that marijuana law reform is now a mainstream issue, one which is supported by a majority of Americans and a supermajority of Democratic primary voters.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

As with so many other issues, it\u2019s hard to tell from Clinton\u2019s public statements exactly where she stands \u2013 unlike Sanders, who openly supports legalization and even introduced a bill to end federal prohibition.<\/span><\/p>\n

Since that exchange with Burns in 2014, Clinton has acknowledged<\/span><\/a> the medical value of cannabis and indicated she would let states do their own thing, and even said cannabis should be rescheduled under the Controlled Substances Act.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, she adopts a \u2018cover your ass\u2019 approach by saying \u201cI don\u2019t think we\u2019ve done enough research yet\u201d and \u201cI want to wait and see\u201d what happens in states with recreational legalization.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is not in line with the truth becoming exponentially obvious \u2013 that denying medical cannabis to suffering patients is a criminal act, and prohibiting a plant that people have used for thousands of years is oppression.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clinton had no problem making it clear to a Wall St. corporation that she is against legalization, but why?<\/span><\/p>\n

Perhaps because the pharmaceutical industry is a major part of Wall St., and they are desperately fighting ballot initiatives to legalize cannabis<\/span><\/a> in several states, as it represents a direct threat to their profits.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more at thefreethoughtproject.com<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n