ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil Climate 'Fraud' Investigation Follies Continue

New court ruling requires oil company to hand over accounting records

|

AGsCleanPower
NYAG

ExxonMobil is suspected by New York Attorney-General Eric Schneiderman of misleading shareholders about the damage that climate change regulations might do to its business prospects. Scheidnerman and nearly twenty other Democratic attorneys-general have joined together in an effort to prove these suspicions correct. Under New York's capacious Martin Act, Schneiderman has issued investigatory subpoenas demanding that the company turn over various documents including those related to research results by company scientists and donations made to suspect academicians, think tanks, and advocacy groups. To date, the company has reportedly sent a million pages of documents over to the AG's office for minions to comb through looking for malacious corporate dissent from the prevailing climate change consensus.

In August, Schneiderman issued another subpoena demanding to see records held by the company's accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). Exxonmobil refused, asserting an "accountant-client privilege" under Texas law. Now a New York Supreme Court judge has ruled that New York law applies and ordered the company to comply with Schneiderman's subpoena. (Note the Supreme Court is not the highest level of New York's judiciary.)

"We are pleased with the Court's order and look forward to moving full-steam ahead with our fraud investigation of Exxon," said Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman in a statement. "Exxon had no legal basis to interfere with PwC's production, and I hope that today's order serves as a wake up call to Exxon that the best thing they can do is cooperate with, rather than resist, our investigation."

The Washington Post reports that the company plans to appeal the decision.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade of Texas issued a discovery order to Massachusetts Attorney-General Maura Healey to turn over documents that would enable him to understand how she, Schneiderman and the other Democratic attorneys-general cooked up their joint investigation of ExxonMobil's possibly fraudulent behavior. The joint investigation is governed by what is called a Common Interest Agreement among the Democratic AGs. In his order Kinkeade noted:

Attorney General Healey's actions leading up to the issuance of the CID [Civil Investigative Demand] causes the Court concern and presents the Court with the question of whether Attorney General Healey issued the CID with bias or prejudgment about what the investigation of Exxon would discover. …

The Court finds the allegations about Attorney General Healey and the anticipatory nature of Attorney General Healey's remarks about the outcome of the Exxon investigation to be concerning to this Court. The foregoing allegations about Attorney General Healey, if true, may constitute bad faith in issuing the CID….

At the Attorneys General United for Clean Power press conference in March 2016 featuring remarks by climate warrior Al Gore, Healey did say:

Fossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be, must be, held accountable. That's why I, too, have joined in investigating the practices of ExxonMobil. We can all see today the troubling disconnect between what Exxon knew, what industry folks knew, and what the company and industry chose to share with investors and with the American public. We are here before you, all committed to combating climate change and to holding accountable those who have misled the public.

Could Healey's statements be considered biased or prejudged? You decide

With regard to Judge Kinkeade's discovery order to Healey, it would certainly be of interest to the public to see how its elected officials collude, ah, work with activists, ah, interested citizens to go after disfavored, ah, possibly fraudulent commercial enterprises. In any case, Healey has filed a motion asking Judge Kinkeade to vacate his discovery order.

As I reported when all this got started a year ago, ExxonMobil began disclosing its annual reports the possible risks to its business posed by climate change in 2006. That happens to be the same year in which the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report definitively stated: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

With regard to the claim that ExxonMobil executives may have fooled shareholders, I earlier reported: "It is not as though shareholders and consumers had not heard for years now that burning fossil fuels causes climate change and that regulators were aiming to cut the use of such fuels. Nevertheless, ExxonMobil's stock price has never fallen below its trading January 1, 2006 level even after acknowledging climate change as a possible business factor in its annual reports."

The follies continue.

Advertisement

NEXT: A.M. Links: Clinton Leads Trump in Polls, Twitter to Lay Off 9% of Its Workforce, Canada and E.U. Eye Free Trade Agreement

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m confused. Is Exxon supposed to disclose business risks related to actual climate change or climate change regulations? Because those are two very different things.

    1. Also did a double take at this. All the coverage I had seen about this was regarding a cover-up of climate change findings, not findings about the expected regulatory impact. The regulatory impact is actually a much more pertinent thing to their shareholders, but it doesn’t fit the “evil science deniers” storyline very well.

      1. Being labeled “evil science denier” only requires disagreeing with the policy proposals. Agreement or disagreement with the actual science is non-material.

        1. I’m making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
          Go this web Site and click to Tech tab to start your work… http://www.Trends88.com

          1. Still breathing, troll?
            Too bad….

            http://www.plusaf.com/homepage…..r-lord.jpg

    2. There are three different allegations to date that I know of:

      Allegation 1: Exxon knew in the 70’s and 80’s that CO2 was dangerous and tried to cover it up from their shareholders. Reality according to the documents – Exxon knew in the 70’s and 80’s that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and were concerned it might be dangerous. They funded development of some early primitive GCM’s that showed it might be a problem, it might not. There is no evidence they tried to manipulate the GCM’s to make CO2 benign and plenty of evidence that they did not. As the IPCC became ever more politicized they withdrew gradually from funding research. Their warnings to shareholders were based on IPCC summaries.

      So that allegation collapsed

      Allegation 2: Exxon knew recently that they would probably be unable to pump all the oil reserved they had, due to the Paris Accord. Thus valuing these stranded assets above 0 was misleading to shareholders about the value of the company.

      Exxon’s response: We can’t predict what politicians will do, but governments closing off oil fields has been happening ever since the oil industry started, and we warn investors that we operate at a risk of governments shutting down components of our business.

      That allegation has collapsed

      1. Allegation 3: The recent collapse of oil prices has had companies writing down the value of their oil reserves. Exxon has not joined the pack. Ergo Exxon is misleading investors into thinking they are worth more than they actually are.

        Exxon’s response: We conservatively value our oil reserves ($65 per barrell IIRC). These valuations are consistent with the expected price of oil a few years out (true last I checked). Ergo we didn’t write them down because we didn’t write them up when oil prices were high.

        I expect that Schneiderman is desperately searching for something, anything(!) to pin on Exxon in an effort to claim they misled shareholders.

        Because his original plan – to unearth documents that Al Gore’s crowd could use to leverage a version of the Tobacco settlement that would provide Al Gore’s empire of anti-fossil fuel activist orgs a steady source of income is in tatters. At this point he is tryign to save himself, because he’s pretty much in Nifong territory and he knows it.

        1. Got it. Thanks, tarran!

            1. Yep well done

        2. Damn, t, that’s some trenchant analysis in your last paragraph.

        3. The discussion of writing down reserves would have occur with the firm’s accountants (PwC), hence the request for the work papers.

        4. +1 for informative comment.

        5. Nifong really is the gold standard of prosecutorial misconduct, isn’t he? And it appears he did it all to try to raise his top 3 earnings to pad his pension (which is yet another argument against pensions, particularly public sector pensions).

          1. Hey, Mike Nifong spent a day in jail, so I think he got what was coming to him.

            1. He wasn’t beaten to death with a mop handle was he?!

        6. Lets call it what it is.

          This “investigation” is in effect a general search warrant looking any evidence of any wrongdoing they can uncover no matter how minor or how tangentally related to “climate change” that it is.

          The ostensible reason for the “investigation” to punish the evil polluter and seize at least a portion of the ill gotten gains from them. The deeper reason for the “investigation” is to hopefully provide a boost to the coffers of a couple of states in desperate need to new tax revenue to keep their welfare state ponzi schemes afloat. The real reason for the “investigation” however is to advance the political careers of the AG’s involved.

          You can rest assured that if ANY wrongdoing is found, no matter how minor that you will see every one of these AG’s sitting in either a governors mansion or congress in 2 to 4 years.

          1. This “investigation” is in effect a general search warrant looking any evidence of any wrongdoing they can uncover no matter how minor or how tangentally related to “climate change” that it is.

            And if they don’t find some they will manufacture it, because this isn’t about anything other than ripping off the people that that they don’t like but have money…

          2. This “investigation” is in effect a general search warrant looking any evidence of any wrongdoing they can uncover no matter how minor or how tangentally related to “climate change” that it is.

            That’s not what it is. It’s a malicious prosecution by grandstanding officials who are using it to punish their perceived political enemies. This is getting into tin-pot dictator territory, and Americans should be very afraid.

          3. Isn’t this how they went after Scott Walker?

            1. Yes. Lawfare. Note how prevalent it is from the left and how much like fascism it looks…

        7. Excellent summary and analysis.

        8. I wonder what his backup plan for riding into the governor’s office is. Big Soda?

          1. New York is like Massachusetts. As long as you’ve got a D in your name, no matter how incompetently or abusively you’ve executed your official duties you are good to go for promotion!

            1. Until Preet catches up with you.

              1. Preet will take down anybody. He doesn’t give a fuck.

                1. +1 woodchipper

                2. He is truly the Honeybadger of AUSAs.

                  1. Crazy nasty-ass Preet.

        9. thanks. valuable service you just provided.

        10. One more thank you from me, Tarran.

        11. This is why I read Reason, the great Journalism found in the Comments

        12. Thank You. Don’t forget Generation Investment Management which staked a great deal in Cap and Trade, renewables as well as carbon offsets becoming a reality through government regulation, tax credits and subsidies. Him and his climate cronies stand to make Billions in the new market. Not sure if the Chicago Climate exchange is still a thing but it had it’s hand in the cookie jar early as well.

        13. I have to come to some obscure libertarian blog for a clear concise explanation of this situation. Thanks tarran.

        14. Good job tarran. Now back to reviewing another paper on global warming policy effects…

      2. Correction(?): CO2 is ALLEGED to be a “Greenhouse Gas”, though no physicist has been able to explain how a “gas” can create a barrier to heat in the manner that a greenhouse wall/roof does.
        Of course, all of this ignores the contribution of the most prevalent “greenhouse gas”: H2O.

    3. Not to progs they aren’t.

    4. The White House Troglodyte Narrative has spread to the State House in Albany

  2. Finally, the heretics will be made to pay.

    1. Freeman Dyson: “Heretics who question the dogmas are needed … I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies.”

      1. Except here your heresy will literally destroy the planet.

        1. All you have to do is replace the population in the bomb with carbon dioxide.

  3. (Note the Supreme Court is not the highest level of New York’s judiciary.)

    Should be noted that the Supreme Court is actually the lowest level of New York’s judiciary.

    1. Sorta’. NY court nomenclature is just weird.

      1. NY Supreme Court is the lowest level, then the Circuit Courts of Appeal and then the Court of Appeal. It was really confusing to get used to when I started law school there.

        1. The circuits are federal, the “circuit” nomanclature isn’t used for the New York state courts.

          1. Some states also have circuit courts. Fun fact: These are called “circuit” courts because in the old days (pre-automobile) the judges of these (higher level, often appellate) courts would “ride the circuit,” ie travel from town to town on a predetermined route to hold court.

            1. I like how you can’t stand being wrong.

              1. Not being wrong is a cornerstone of Hit & Run commenting.

            2. Hense the explicit application of my statement to the “New York state courts” and not all “state courts” I don’t know anything about, say, the Texas Judiciary.

            3. I believe New York State refers to “Departments” instead of Circuits

      2. It goes:

        Supreme Court (Trial Court)

        Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (1st Appeal)

        New York Court of Appeals (Last State Appeal)

        1. Their Table of Organization shows village, city and county courts as the lowest level, though only for certain upstate departments (geographic divisions). In the more populous departments the lowest courts do appear to be components of the confusingly-named Supreme Court.

          Of course, IANAL, and I’m from the South so all of that is kind of alien to me.

          1. The problem comes from the fact that different cases take different paths based upon the subject matter – and that makes it really messy.

            1. Cool. Thanks.

          2. I like how you still can’t stand being wrong.

              1. Did you have your CBR mask on, LTC, when you inhaled? Do we need to inject the atropine?

                1. *stabs SS with syringe*

                  It’ll kill ya or cure ya.

              2. I was thinking one of our more vocal socon posters, the one with whom I no longer interact. Or possibly Shultz given the butt-hurt below.

      3. Tonio|10.27.16 @ 9:58AM|#

        Sorta’

        No, not “sorta”.

        1. Actually Cicerock it is in fact ‘sorta”. New York also has various inferior courts of limited jurisdiction, City Courts, Town Courts, and District Courts. Tonio is not wrong here.

          1. Thanks, jarflax, but I’m not really concerned with someone who just says I’m wrong without providing any documentation to the contrary.

            1. Not you, of course, jarflax, but that other poster.

    2. 20+ years of Law & Order plus spinoffs and this is still news?

      1. I bet there are people who still think you can start a case at SCOTUS.

        1. I mean, in very few circumstances the Supreme Court does have original jurisdiction. Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution

          In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

          (though I know that’s not what they’re talking about)

          1. Yeah, I was thinking more of common cases, rather than the enumerated exceptions.

        2. If I can’t take a case to the Supreme Court, where can I take it?!!

  4. I hope that today’s order serves as a wake up call to Exxon that the best thing they can do is cooperate with, rather than resist, our investigation.

    “Just lie back, relax, and enjoy it!”

    1. You’re stealing my bit!

  5. Exxon has nothing to lose by “hindering” Schneiderman’s “investigation” and everything to lose cooperating with it.

    My hope is that exxon fights this fascist punk all the way to the end. At this point the AG’s united for clean power really consists of a few bitter clingers, and the baseless nature of their fishing expedition is basically out there for everyone to see.

    Moreover, Exxon has a simple argument that any jury can understand. Soemthing to the effect that “We finance scientific research that is published in scientific literature. We do not cover up inconvenient results or alter them. Our research stands or falls on its own merits as does any research subject to the process of science.”

    Gore’s munchkin army will have to powerfully bamboozle a jury to overcome that defense. It’s possible in theory, but highly unlikely. In the meantime the lawsuits by CEI and EE Legal are unearthing ever more damning evidence of a politically motivated prosecution launched with no evidence of wrongdoing. Which is why so many munchkins have already deserted the fray.

    1. Gore’s munchkin army will have to powerfully bamboozle a jury to overcome that defense.

      I dunno. Careful jury selection. Only allow people who believe the “consensus.” Then the defense is lost because consensus trumps corporatist propaganda words like “merit.”

      1. Except Exxon is part of the consensus. Hell, their GCM’s computation of equilibrium climate sensitivity(ECS) has the actual observed sensitivity well within its error bars and is closer to being correct than the large number of ‘modern’ GCM’s that the IPCC uses to calculate its band of possible ECS’s

        They picked on Exxon because of the Exxon Valdez incident. That company is da’ debil to the savages in Al Gore’s cult. And it looks like they picked the wrong target to mau mau, since Exxon’s officers have shown commendable spine.

        1. I thought they went after Exxon because of record profits.

            1. It goes back much farther than that. Exxon is what used to be called Standard Oil of New Jersey, which was the refining arm of Standard Oil before the 1911 break-up, and was the largest of the post-break-up companies.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon

        2. Yea ECS less than 2 and TCR less than 1.5 are looking pretty good right now.

        3. Also the big money behind climate research is the various world gov’s. Dwarfs any oil/denier money.

          1. Also the big money behind climate research is the various world gov’s. Dwarfs any oil/denier money

            ^ This. It’s on the order of hundreds to one. Yet the millions spent by the oil/denier crowd is the “big megaphone” while the hundreds of millions spent by governments is little people speaking truth to power.

  6. “Nice energy economy you have there. Would be a shame if anything was to happen to it.”

  7. The reason foundation was originally included in this also.

    But Trump has the writers shitting their pants.

    1. I wonder if a Trump administration or a Hillary administration would be more likely to use the DOJ to go after Badthinkers in this manner?

      Actually, no, I don’t wonder at all.

      1. Not to mention; the only way an unfavorable decision would affect everyone at large or have anything to do more directly with the Presidency would be if Exxon were forced to appeal/lose all the way Supreme Court.

  8. U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade of Texas issued a discovery order to Massachusetts Attorney-General Maura Healey to turn over documents that would enable him to understand how she, Schneiderman and the other Democratic attorneys-general cooked up their joint investigation of ExxonMobil’s possibly fraudulent behavior.

    That is the thing to watch.

    1. Absolute. Prosecutorial. Immunity. FTW!

      It really doesn’t matter if he’s operating in bad faith. The US Supreme Court already said it was OK with them if an AG’s office withheld exculpatory evidence in murder trials on a regular basis. There’s zero chance that the court is going to allow an interstate catfight in the courts over this – particularly when the court is soon to be dominated by democrat party operatives.

      1. There is only so much SCOTUS can do while this is still in the District Court. And SCOTUS and the Court of Appeals can’t do anything proactively; they can only do something if an interlocutory motion is filed (a motion asking a higher court to interfere with an ongoing lower court proceeding).

        There is currently only one open seat on SCOTUS. How quickly, or if, that gets filled depends on the US Senate.

        1. There is only an open seat if you assume the modern convention of SCOTUS being filled with nine justices. The constitution doesn’t require any particular number.

          1. +1 Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937

          2. Didn’t Orange-utan threaten to pack the court? I try not to absorb too much of the ambient Rage-iation from him.

  9. I highly recommend the Energy In Depth article to which Bailey links just before that block quote of Judge Kinkeade’s order.

    Last month, during the original hearing on this case, lawyers representing Healey’s office claimed that their subpoena was not political. But Judge Kinkeade wasn’t buying it, considering that the AGs announced their investigations at a press conference with Al Gore. As Judge Kinkeade said at the time, “like Al Gore wasn’t frickin’ involved!”

    1. I’d imagine having Al Gore present to sanctify your denier hunt is a lot like having the Pope’s blessings before you start burning heretics.

      1. Niiiice.

        I’m starting to take a shine to you, ‘Chetta.

        1. This is the worst comment you have ever posted.

          1. I do my best, Crusty. Thanks.

          2. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

    2. Can’t Exxon ask for a gag order on the whole thing based on the grounds that they’ll be disclosing proprietary business secrets? It seems to me it might be just a wee bit harder for the AG’s to deny this isn’t a straightforward political shakedown/witch hunt rather than a noble quest for justice if they’re unwilling to conduct this thing in private rather than in the public spotlight. And it seems that when you’re being asked for the private documents of a competitive enterprise you’d have a very good reason to demand the documents remain private. (Not that there wouldn’t be a shitload of mysterious and untraceable leaks emanating from an undisclosed location about 5 minutes after the AG’s got their hands on the papers.)

      1. That would be construed as Exxon trying to keep this hushed up, and from the look of it they’re desperate to blow it open (or should be, anyway) to scare the roaches off.

      2. It might be to their benefit. Or it might not be.

        One thing that has helped Exxon – all the documents that the activists publicize “proving” their skulduggery, when examined closely and slowly end up disproving it.

        Your accounting strategy isn’t really a business secret that provides a competitive advantage because it is secret. I can see a very strong case for allowing Schneiderman to leak. It can give them a cudgel to beat him up in court if his leaks are misleading and intended to prejudice the jury while allowing the public to weigh the evidence in real time.

  10. Fossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be, must be, held accountable.

    If I were Michael Mann, I would ask the lefty AGs to please stop making waves because Exxon can subpoena their research – since from where else are these AGs supporting their claim – with all that that entails, as in “the jig is up.”

    I earlier reported: “It is not as though shareholders and consumers had not heard for years now that burning fossil fuels causes climate change […] Nevertheless, ExxonMobil’s stock price has never fallen below its trading January 1, 2006 level even after acknowledging climate change as a possible business factor in its annual reports.”

    That’s because people who invest in energy know where the misinformation and exaggerations are coming from.

  11. “AGs United for Clean Power”
    How the hell is that even a thing?

      1. Actually, I’m imagining ‘FYTH’ both as the acronym to properly answer the question and the noise made by the fuckers when the question is asked.

        1. What’s the “H” stand for? How?

          1. “How” is cultural appropriation from the Native Americans.

  12. Yes they have, because in NY the Martin Act exists, it’s broad, has been on the books for about 100 years, and has been used before to prosecute suspected fraud in business.

    It’s interesting you fail to mention Lamar Smith’s clear overreach in the use of subpoenas (24 to date) of not only State AGs doing their job but also private advocacy groups, all in the defense of one company. And now he is demanding communications from the SEC itself because they might bring charges against Exxon.

    Might.

    http://www.nature.com/news/how…..ee-1.20829

    “Capacious, malicious, collude, climate warrior…,”

    Indeed. Good descriptors…but of Lamar Smith.

    1. Are you insinuating that Lamar Smith has been bought off by Exxon? Where’s your proof, Jack? I’m told that such accusations basically require a written confession these days to prove.

      1. Ronald just insinuated same for the NY AG. Goose, gander.

        1. That you think so is what makes you so precious.

        2. So the argument here is that in order to discuss possible (guaranteed) collusion among people you think demonstrate Good Think, Bailey must talk about a Congressman who may or may not have been lobbied by Exxon and doing their bidding?

          Of course, a shit bag such as yourself would see no difference between the AG’s who wield actual honest to god force going after private citizens/a private corporations and a Congressman asking questions with regards to that. Because when we get into the particulars of what the two sides are doing, they aren’t comparable.

          It’s no surprise that you would express no alarm over Attorney Generals politicizing the law to go make political hay off climate change, but simultaneously clutch pearls over Exxon potentially defending itself by buying a Congressman (with no proof being presented besides that he’s taken an interest in the matter). Meanwhile, you will turn around and have the audacity to complain about a lack of evidence that Hillary has been bought and paid for a couple thousand times over.

          1. “Oh yeah? HILLARY!”

            I knew that would make its arrival. It always does on any discussion, any topic.

            Find someone who supports her.

            1. So, you think screeching about Hillary makes us forget you failed to refute any of his points?

      2. Jack likes to bring up Lamar Smith because he’s incapable of doing anything except mouthing Soviet style whataboutism’s. Even if he had a point this isn’t a compelling defense of anything, it’s just a deflection and he knows it.

    2. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Yes they have, because in NY the Martin Act exists, it’s broad, has been on the books for about 100 years

      Age does not turn a bad law into a good law.

      you fail to mention Lamar Smith’s clear overreach in the use of subpoenas

      To AG’s? Oh, cry me a river, Jackass. They’re all the same State – who gives a shit? They can eat each other. Exxon is, instead, a private company.

      AGs doing their job but also private advocacy groups

      If the stockholders are not complaining, then the AGs are not doing “their job”. They’re merely engaging in a witch hunt.

    3. I might add this…so Exxon stopped complying, it’s taken to court and so far the judiciary rules in favor of Schneiderman.

      Smith has issued subpoenas to NOAA for internal communications and they refused. The state AGs also refuse. The private advocacy groups refused. The SEC has said it won’t comply.

      So Smith will do what? Ask for a contempt of Congress ruling? Hasn’t yet and I think he has until the end of the year. Schneiderman seems confident of his grounds. Smith less so. All with good reason.

      1. “so far the judiciary rules in favor of Schneiderman”

        Well, one did, one didn’t. Not sure what you think this means.

      2. “Smith has issued subpoenas to NOAA for internal communications and they refused. The state AGs also refuse. The private advocacy groups refused. The SEC has said it won’t comply.”

        And I should point out this makes them look like they’re dirty.

        If they pursued relief from the court, instead of flatly refusing, they wouldn’t look like they were guilty.

        1. If they are guilty of anything, Smith will be sure to pursue contempt of Congress charges. We will see.

          1. And he shouldn’t have to, all their info is public property.

            1. Jackand Ace doesn’t begin to understand the legal issues at play here. Or anything, really, for that matter. His job is to spread the talking points. The fact that he doesn’t even comprehend anything he repeats is immaterial.

              He’s a sophist of the highest order. Like Tony, amsoc, or mtrueman, he cares not for truth or logic but just that he has done his job for the cause.

              1. And yet people continue to interact with it. Scroll wheel, people!

                1. Sometimes they give off glimmers of sentience. But this is hostile territory, and they know it, so they’re never going to allow themselves to be so vulnerable as to engage in genuine intellectualism. Sophistry gives the appearance of winning with none of the actual effort.

      3. Re: Jackass Ass,

        Smith has issued subpoenas to NOAA for internal communications and they refused. The state AGs also refuse. The private advocacy groups refused. The SEC has said it won’t comply.

        Clear evidence that the whole effort by the AG’s, the private ‘advocacy’ (i.e. Marxian) groups and the rest are perfectly on the up and up with their efforts, doesn’t it????

      4. Yeah, because Lamar Smith might not be a soulless demon like Schneiderman….

        Fascism is fashism…. and that’s what Schneiderman is doing. Oh and just stuff BBBBBUUUT New York LAW excuse. I don’t give a damn about New York’s evil laws….

  13. “Team” politics is dominating this issue, as it seems to in everything.

    Such civil liberties activists as still exist in the Democrat party should be outraged at this sort of behavior by the government. They used to be thick as flies on a carcass in the northeast, particularly in New York. But with Obama advancing and expanding the Patriot Act, TSA expansion being a major coup for the Democrats and Clinton’s neocon-ish hawkishness, they seemed to have abandoned their Civil Libertarian roots.

    The ACLU types should be all over this issue as an obvious misuse of government power…. but it is so hard…. The anti-corporation thread is so strong in that crowd that obvious first amendment non-starters like Citizens United are either uninteresting or outright disdained, depending on their level of partisanship.

    Absent the pot legalization movement, there really isn’t a civil liberties constituency any more. Even #BLM has been hijacked and moved sideways into some bizarro-world African liberation theology movement, abandoning the civil liberties issues at the core for political talking points designed to gain press coverage rather than change.

  14. Ooohh! Martin Act! Very broad! Awesome! Climate justice! Hypocrisy! Repeat!

  15. I’m going to be bold and make the following allegations:

    1) Al Gore is behind this.

    2) He’s using the same tactics he used as the Clinton Administration’s point man on the tobacco “settlement”.

    Remember, it was the attorney generals uniting under Gore’s direction who drove the tobacco industry to accept the government taking over all aspects of the industry in exchange for immunity from the attorney generals’ tobacco lawsuits.

    Remember, also, that the tobacco lawsuits were, likewise, based on the statements of the tobacco industry–for misleading consumers to believe that smoking didn’t necessarily cause cancer. All they had to do was find one instance of the tobacco industry admitting that tobacco did cause cancer for the whole house of cards to come tumbling down.

    These are the exact same tactics Al Gore used to force the tobacco industry to give up everything from their freedom of speech in advertising, their profits, their distribution, and their production–all in exchange for protection from lawsuits and the attorney generals’ lawsuits–and Al Gore wants to do the same thing to the oil industry.

    But don’t take my word for it–Al Gore says so himself!

    1. tarran made the comparison with the tobacco settlement already. I also direct your attention to the quote from Judge Kinkeade which I posted above.

    2. Ken, see my response below. I think you are 100% correct.

      1. And see my quote below:

        “Lauded by Vice President Gore as “the best, most hopeful step in years” in this effort, the AGs United for Clean Power coalition brings together attorneys general from 25 states, territories, cities and counties to explore ways to jointly support the fight against climate change.
        One such tactic includes facilitating ongoing and potential joint investigations into whether fossil fuel companies and industry groups mislead the public about the dangers of climate change or the viability of renewable energy resources.

        “What these attorneys general are doing is extremely important. These brave members of this coalition are doing their job like they did in the tobacco case,” said Vice President Gore, comparing fossil fuel companies to the tobacco companies of the 1990s that fell under intense scrutiny over misstatements about cancer and heart disease risks associated with cigarette smoking.

        Al Gore was the Clinton Administration’s point man on tobacco.

    3. I’m going to be bold and make the following allegations:

      1) Al Gore is behind this.

      that’s not an allegation. It’s a fact.

      2) He’s using the same tactics he used as the Clinton Administration’s point man on the tobacco “settlement”.

      that’s not an allegation. It’s a fact.

    4. Big Tobacco now has a guarantee of perpetual profits without further hassle. I think that worked out for them.

      http://www.stock-analysis-on.n…..fitability

    5. Yeah, oil companies aren’t going to accept that, though. They can afford to pay the lawsuits in exchange for their freedom.

  16. Former US Vice President and Chairman of The Climate Reality Project Al Gore joined New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in New York March 29, to announce a coalition aimed at aggressively protecting the recent progress the US has made in combatting climate change. Lauded by Vice President Gore as “the best, most hopeful step in years” in this effort, the AGs United for Clean Power coalition brings together attorneys general from 25 states, territories, cities and counties to explore ways to jointly support the fight against climate change.
    One such tactic includes facilitating ongoing and potential joint investigations into whether fossil fuel companies and industry groups mislead the public about the dangers of climate change or the viability of renewable energy resources.

    “What these attorneys general are doing is extremely important. These brave members of this coalition are doing their job like they did in the tobacco case,” said Vice President Gore, comparing fossil fuel companies to the tobacco companies of the 1990s that fell under intense scrutiny over misstatements about cancer and heart disease risks associated with cigarette smoking.

    —-The Climate Reality Project

    https://www.climaterealityproject. org/blog/ al-gore-and-new-york-attorney-general-eric- schneiderman-launch- ags-united-clean-power-coalition

    1. I tried to un-fuck your link but those people make it really difficult to deep link anything. I can’t find that article.

      1. Google search the link.

        Why is that difficult?

        Copy the link and paste it into a search field.

        How could that be difficult?

        1. Says the person who can’t manage to post properly working link to that story in the first place.

          I’ve stopped trying to fix your behavior, Ken. I was trying to provide a service to my fellow commenters and help move the discussion forward. Yes, I know how to search, and even how to post links with long urls which actually work.

          All my efforts to find that article take me to a blog landing site with multiple articles, none of which seem to describe the formation of the Clean Power Coalition. But that landing site goes on for multiple pages.

          So, Ken, do you want to provide useful information, or do you just want to continue being a pissy little bitch?

          1. I’ve stopped trying to fix your behavior, Ken.

            Who cares what you try or don’t try?

            P.S. Fuck you!

            1. Maybe you could try learning how to post a working link.

              How hard is posting a working link ?

              1. Fuck you, too, Tulpa!

                1. It “hoginho”

                  Apparently you read as well as you link.

                  1. Well maybe you and Tulpa should go bowling, do miniature golf, dinner and a movie, have some drinks, see what happens.

                    I bet you two would get along great!

    2. It should be noted that The Climate Reality Project is an organization that was made from the merger of two nonprofits–both of which were founded by Al Gore.

      Make no mistake, this isn’t about justice or fraud per se.

      This is about political advocacy masquerading as justice.

      This is about abusing the court system in an attempt to make the government take over the oil industry and regulate the production, distribution, and use of oil–just like they did with tobacco.

      Before we get lost in the minutia and nuances of various legal arguments, we should also be exposing these attorney generals for what they’re trying to do.

      The appropriate solution to the attorney generals abusing the court system with political advocacy masquerading as justice in an attempt to run an end around the voters and ration off oil like they did with tobacco probably isn’t in the courts. We should be exposing these attorney generals to the scorn of the voters–they’re elected officials!

      We should start exposing their names in their own states and get them booted out of office for being part of Al Gore’s AGs United For Climate Change and associated with Gore’s Climate Reality Project.

      1. You are missing the bit where these attorney generals are from solidly Democrat states. Even folks who ought to lean libertarian are true believers in the “climate change + evil corporations” boogie man in these parts of the country. The electorate in these areas is firmly behind the AG office on this one. “Making big corporations pay” is a successful campaign slogan for these guys.

        In short, it should be immediately disqualifying, but it isn’t.

        1. You’re missing the fact that I addressed that below.

          “Even in deep blue states, there are a lot more people–who don’t [want] their gasoline rationed by environmentalist bureaucrats–than there are registered Democrats. In fact, there are plenty of Democrats who care about climate change–but don’t want their gasoline rationed by environmentalist bureaucrats either.”

          All the Attorneys General who want to campaign with the belief that their constituencies will continue to support them even as they try to effectively ration their constituents’ gasoline–should be encouraged to do so.

      2. We achieved energy independence and broke the back of OPEC. The Democrats cannot abide that, they really really want their $5/gallon gas.

  17. Heck, I’m sure since all they’re interested in is making Exxon pay for their polluting ways, Exxon can make this whole thing go away by showing they’re serious about addressing global issues with a single well-placed donation to some sort of charitable global initiative sort of thing. And a couple of high-priced hookers for Schneiderman – I hear NY AG’s are suckers for that sort of thing.

    1. That’s not enough. The government is after a perpetual payout similar to the Tobacco Settlement.

    2. Honestly, at a million pages per subpoena, I’m expecting the next one to get issued and the next day, at the AGFCP offices, the thub-thubbing of helicopters rises as the sun seems to dim and everyone in the building is subsequently buried under an avalanche of paper.

      1. And remember that the punishment is the process. Producing those pages costs money. I’m assuming someone (a lawyer) has to do a document review of anything that is released. Costs very little to ask for documents, costs a lot to produce them. And the AGs have effectively unlimited funds since they are using taxpayer dollars.

  18. Ken, they say fortune favors the bold and in this case it definitely favors you, because that is exactly what is happening. I posted this a few months back

    There is a conspiracy. Behold the Climate Accountability Institute.

    They held a workshop and published a report:

    And finally, the group sought to identify the most promising and mutually reinforcing intellectual, legal, and/or public strategies for moving forward. We are pleased to share the outcome of these preliminary workshop discussions. Among the many points captured in this report, we want to highlight the following:
    ? A key breakthrough in the public and legal case for tobacco control came when internal documents came to light showing the tobacco industry had knowingly misled the public. Similar documents may well exist in the vaults of the fossil fuel industry and their trade associations and front groups, and there are many possible approaches to
    unearthing them.

    The damning passage starts on page 7.

    Check out page 34 for the list of participants. Some interesting names there.

  19. OT:
    CPS is doing a walk-through tomorrow thanks to some stupid shit the kid said at school. Other than hiding the hookers and the blow, what should I do? I’ve got plenty of food, plenty of toys, plenty of clothes, plenty of books, pets are regularly cleaned up after, guns are locked up, bottles have gone to the redemp… What are some things that might catch their eye that I might miss?

    1. No dirty dishes in sink. Dirty clothes should be in hamper. And not too many of them – maybe 2 -3 days’ worth. Make sure all the bathrooms have extra toilet paper rolls.

      If you have any old dogs, incontinent, or poorly toilet trained dogs, find someplace out of the house for them. 😉

      1. That makes sense. Was planning on all of the above except the extra roll in the upstairs bathroom.

        1. Also food in fridge. Nothing too nuts. OJ, Milk, grape jelly, fruits and veg and some deli meats. Make sure that beer is less than 75% of the contents. 😉

          Having leftovers like pasta or lasagna helps too.

          1. I always have lots of food and leftovers. Well, when I am eating that is. Haven’t eaten since Tuesday when the incident happened, and they sent her to my mom’s house.

            1. Jesus, dude. That sucks.

              1. I need to lose the weight.

                1. A complete cessasstion of intake will not provide a long-term positive outcome. Even if you resume eating before dying.

                  1. I don’t give a shit about long term. I just want my obnoxious child back in the house.

                  2. I can’t even force myself to eat. Tried. It’s how my body deals with stress.

                    1. “Father appeared gaunt, sallow, and malnourished. Passed out midway through interview. Recommend drug testing and observation.”

                    2. Ugh, that really sucks man.

                    3. Having been there (I came within one bad hearing of completely losing custody of my kids thanks to my ex’s lies), I have some words of encouragement:

                      1) Don’t fret about not being able to eat. In my case, I couldn’t sleep, and worrying about sleeping made things worse.

                      2) Don’t agonize about the past. It’s done; it can’t be changed. Your brain will spin out of control and add to your anxiety. Don’t agonize about what other people did or did not do. That’s even mroe out of your control.

                      3) Make a list of what you have to do before, during and after the meeting. Write down simple, specific actions.

                      4) When you start feeling anxious or your mind gets stuck on what’s happening, look at the list. Do one or more of those actions.

                      For example, I had a hearing a couple of years back where I knew I was going to be really savaged by my ex’s lawyer with a goal to getting me to lose it in court. My list consisted of:
                      – record their allegations so that you can rebut them comprehensively later.
                      – answer K—–‘s questions (my lawyer)
                      – answer the judge’s questions
                      – if K makes a mistaken assertion, write a note with a correction and pass it to her.

                      At the hearing, A—- (my ex’s attorney) made a bunch of wild inflammatory allegations. Everytime my ire rose, I reminded myself, “What is your role here? What tasks are you supposed to be performing?”

                      I wrote down the allegations. Passed notes with info my attorney needed. And it worked!

                    4. I know the terror of facing an organization that sees your kids as sausage to justify their jobs and you as prey. I really feel for you man. But, in the end, one can get through this.

                      We’re here for you.

                    5. Regarding recording them: This could well anger them if they know it is happening. Find out if your state is a one-party consent state (only one of the parties, ie you, has to consent to the recording); if your state is a two-party state you are fucked. If you do choose to record them illegally, never mention the recording, but you will produce copious interview notes the moment they leave your premises.

                    6. Thanks again tarran. I was mainly seeking your advice (no offense to anyone else) because I know you’ve been through this shit before.

                    7. FWIW, being so upset about it is an excellent indication that you’re a good dad, and being a great dad has got to count in the kid’s favor with somebody. It sure as hell can’t count against bringing the kid home.

                      I hope the kid is back home soon, and I bet that’s what happens.

                    8. You are entirely welcome. If I think of anything else, I’ll post it in the PM links.

          2. Thanks, tarran, for providing that info to Sarc.

    2. Make sure your browser history is cleared!

      1. Private Windows, dude. Private Windows.

    3. That sucks, dude. Good luck. Not knowing how predatory your CPS is or the exact nature of the incident it might be worth your while to hire an attorney with familiarity with custody issues. If CPS makes a “finding” then you’ll need the attorney anyway.

      1. I’m too poor for that.

        1. Never hurts to call. They will often give you a free fifteen minute consultation. They will be upfront about their fees.

          Good luck and please do let us know how this turns out.

          1. Most of these matters require a flat retainer that is in the thousands. DUI, divorce, CPS, all that shit. And I don’t have five grand to put down. It ain’t there.

    4. Hard to say. Good chance that stuff in your possession no normal person could conceive of as harmful, CPS will send you to jail for.

      1. CPS can’t send me to jail, at least not in this state. All matters are civil, not criminal.

        1. I have come to expect the worst from agents of the state.

    5. His teachers and the principal aren’t capable of talking to you and his other parent (assuming they’re in the picture) and him and helping him understand why he shouldn’t say certain things in school, since they’re all statist pricks? I think we may be paying your school officials too much money.

    6. Funnyish story from a long time ago: a couple decades ago two childless biddies from CPS dropped by the house for an interview with my mother after my oldest brother said some stupid shit at school. During the visit my sister, who would have been three or four at the time, shuffled into the kitchen pretending to be a kitty and started nibbling from the cat bowl. Mom says the look on the women’s face was priceless. Nothing came of it, but I can only imagine the wringer they’d put a family through if this occurred recently.

      1. It really depends on whether they want to fuck you over.

    7. Also, hide any and all libertarian or conservative leaning publications and books. They see that, they might go the way of the Brit version of CPS and say that it’s a hostile environment for the kid, since you are obviously a deplorable.

      1. Actually, the magazines are a good idea. Odds are the investigators don’t read. They’ll just note that there are books and magazines.

        1. Take down the Trump sign in the front yard?

    8. You have a large amount of drama that hits the buttons of the people you’re talking to.

      A less charitable person would say you’re making it up for attention.

      1. I wish that was the case.

        1. Forget it, Sarc, it’s just a driveby troll or a sock.

          1. Oh, I know. I have many enemies on here.

            1. I still think that’s just Tulpa.

    9. My dad’s girlfriend had to beg CPS to check in on her psycho daughter, who was a junkie and terribly abusive but wouldn’t let the family intervene. CPS wouldn’t do it unless the school phoned in a complaint, so his girlfriend ends up begging administrators to contact CPS.

      Just think about that while showing your house to some smarmy overpaid fuck with a notepad: they’d much rather ding you on unwashed dishes than get involved in real abuse.

      1. Thing that bugs me is that the CPS bitch will have a State Trooper in tow. Basically a warrantless search. Legally I can refuse to let them in, but then they would get vindictive.

        1. Can you opt to let her in but tell the trooper he needs a warrent?

          1. Nope. CPS workers get bodyguards.

            1. I was merely trying to make light of a terrible situation.

    10. Chemicals in your garage mate. Open gasoline, turpentine, etc.

      1. The meth lab is closed 😉

    11. You only know this simple task I’m sure, but the one person I know who dealt with CPS had a large, blown-up photo of six empty Coors Light cans on his counter-top used against him at the court hearing, so get rid of those cans if there are any.

      1. Yeah. All cans and bottles will be long gone before anyone gets here.

        1. Out of curiosity, how many empties do you typically have?

          1. Depends on the day. Lots of bottled water, only because it’s the only way to get the kid to drink it. Thing is that when I drink, I drink. So one night of drinking for me looks like the aftermath of a fun poker party.

            1. Assume they will check the trash and/or recycling bins.

            2. binge drinking is probably not a good thing on the report.

          2. 30 or 40….oh wait, you weren’t talking to me….

            *frantically sweeps empties into bin*

    12. I put my email out there if anyone cares. I could use some support.

    13. Hide your MAGA hat!

    14. Don’t show them your posts on Hit & Run.

    15. Good luck. Rough.

      Kids don’t realize what they’re saying and government knows this but it won’t stop them.

  20. What I am finding hilarious from this whole endeavor is that, the more “evidence” that emerges, the more it becomes clear that Exxon is the exact sort of “good corporate citizen” the left claims to want.

    So, naturally, Exxon has to be punished. Does it ever occur to these people that creating the wrong incentives is going to have far worse consequences then whatever limited gains might be had from fining Exxon?

    1. What was that old refrain? “Progressives don’t understand incentives”?

      1. Yeah, pretty much. Which is why their policies always fuck up. Even when they have a kernel of a good idea, they fail to understand how people actually work. It’s especially funny since it basically boils down to an utter lack of introspection. They claim to speak for “the people” but don’t even bother to understand themselves never mind those on whose behalf they allegedly speak.

    2. You’d think it would be clear how our lords and masters roll. Look what happened to Gaddafi AFTER he shut down his nuclear program and pushed Al Qaeda out of Libya. Bayonet up the turd pipe.

      1. See also: Ukraine and giving up its nuclear weapons.

        But I think underlying all of this is that they don’t actually want “good corporate citizens”. They want no “corporate citizens” whatsoever, and of course, no petroleum production, either. If they have to fuck over people acting in good faith to get there, then so be it.

        But they forget that they don’t hold the “permanent majority” after all. They’re always one election away from a good spanking. And they never learn.

        1. Why would they need to learn anything? All they have to do is make 50%+1 of the voting population (which itself is but a fragment of the total population) scared of things associated with the other 50%-1. The system selects against educability.

          1. Not even that, Citizen, you can win an election with a mere plurality (greatest number of votes cast, even if that is less than 50%), which is likely in this election given McMullin, Johnson and Stein combined.

            1. I was trying to keep the math simple in case Tony or amsoc wanders in here, but yes, that is true.

              The point is, it’s not that hard for a duopoly party to keep on duopoling.

    3. “Does it ever occur to these people…”

      No. It is a shakedown. Thats all. Extortionists only consider how much they can steal.

      The global warming scam really is breathtaking to me. It is so transparently a scam and yet more and more people eat it up.

      1. Ah, but the majority don’t see it as a scam. While there is a small number of greenie true believers the majority of people just want to go-along. Even if they think the greenies are exaggerating, they don’t want to risk the greenies being right. The other component of that is that they really think the greenies are good people and don’t think that the greenies will kill the economy and ration energy. It’s a boiling the frog problem.

        1. Also, don’t discount the allure of an apocalyptic scenario. There’s something in the human psyche that seems almost to crave being present at the end of the world as we know it.

  21. Side note: any time someone holds a press conference where people who have nothing to say are standing behind him, the media should call them out. “Who is he, and what does he have to do with this?” “Why is she standing behind you?”

  22. Here’s the Washington Post talking about both the tactics used to bring down “Big Tobacco” and Al Gore’s involvement.

    Beginning in late 1994, the troika’s political and regulatory assault on cigarette makers, buttressed by the lawsuits of 40 state attorneys general, triggered the fall of Big Tobacco. Fearful of bankruptcy, the tobacco barons agreed last summer to settle the suits at a cost of $368.5 billion. Now they must convince persuade skeptical lawmakers to accept the broad legal protections included in the deal.

    But the tobacco companies know that getting congressional Republicans and Democrats to agree to a complicated deal means substantial input from the White House. And that means their fate could well be back in the hands of Al Gore in the next weeks.

    Whether distracted by the Whitewater investigation or merely eager to bolster Gore’s prospects in 2000, Clinton has increasingly deferred to his vice president on the subject of smoking. In many ways, Gore has become so closely associated with the push for reform that he embodies its conflicts

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..cco31c.htm

    “The Fall of Big Tobacco”

    Washington Post
    March 31, 1998

    1. And now they have net profits > 10%…

  23. that time Nature endorsed a presidential candidate..

    http://www.nature.com/news/hil…..nt-1.20823

    1. Just burn it to the fucking ground. Jesus Christ.

    2. Ten bucks says that was penned by someone in the Hillary camp.

      Proggies have been trying to co-opt the scientific journals for years. In the cases where they have been successful they have turned them into rags.

      I second what mad. says.

      1. It’s a British journal, so their tendencies have always been socialist.

    3. yeah, that ensured I would not renew my subscription and I flagged their weekly emails as spam. Can’t unsubscribe without logging in, resetting password, blah, blah, blah.

      fuck them.

  24. For your day-to-day gas fill-up Exxon Mobile is just a private contract administrator. Exxon does not usually drill wells or weld pipes together. This work is done by thousands of small private contractors. 50 employees or less and no girls but for the phone. That’s just the way it is.

    When the government goes after Exxon Corporation they are really going after industrial pipe fitters and electricians. Men.

  25. Incidentally, “AGs United for Clean Power”, the ones who are orchestrating all of this, include the following:

    “The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent”

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/04…..believers/

    According to this article, the AG from the Virgin Islands dropped out.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..as-attorn/

    Republican candidates for attorney generals in all these states–and their rivals in the Democrat primaries–should be going after all these attorneys general for trying to do an end around their own voters with these lawsuits.

    Even in deep blue states, there are a lot more people–who don’t their gasoline rationed by environmentalist bureaucrats–than there are registered Democrats. In fact, there are plenty of Democrats who care about climate change–but don’t want their gasoline rationed by environmentalist bureaucrats either.

  26. Exxons chooses war!

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..days-to-go

    Let’s see, the government start to pick on it and when Exxon defends itself, it’s them declaring ‘war’?

    Lord me, my list of ‘banned’ publications grows by the day.

    1. I haz a confuse, you posted a trump article.

      1. Wasn’t supposed to. I lost it. Oh well.

        Also. The comments in the WaPo article. Crazed lunacy. Climate change supporters are really nasty people.

        They got that crazed look in their eyes when they attack. I love how they see no contradiction in telling people who disagree with them to die in the name of their virtuous climate change cult.

        Like I said, they’re neither rational nor humanist.

  27. “And when politicians talk about higher taxes for oil companies, chances are they’re really talking about taxing you.

    That’s because the major publicly held oil and gas firms ? the so-called “Big Oil” companies ? are owned by an extremely broad-based cross section of individual and institutional investors. In the case of ExxonMobil, more than 85 percent of our And when politicians talk about higher taxes for oil companies, chances are they’re really talking about taxing you.

    That’s because the major publicly held oil and gas firms ? the so-called “Big Oil” companies ? are owned by an extremely broad-based cross section of individual and institutional investors. In the case of ExxonMobil, more than 85 percent of our shareholders live in the United States. Efforts to raise taxes on companies like ExxonMobil are, by definition, efforts to raise taxes ? and reduce shareholder returns ? for the millions of shareholders who own oil company stocks either directly or through retirement and pension funds.

    1. Many don’t even know it.

      Private and public pension funds ? managing assets on behalf of more than 60 million U.S. households in 145 million accounts ? own nearly a third of all shares in U.S. oil and gas companies, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Mutual funds and individual retirement plans account for nearly 40 percent more.

      Politicians arguing for higher oil company taxes want you to think they’re taxing corporate executives ? but the reality is that industry executives own less than three percent of oil and gas company shares, and only half of one percent of the shares of the largest, integrated oil companies.”

      http://www.exxonmobilperspecti…..-you-do-2/

      This shakedown really isnt getting the attention it should. It is by far the most destructive and dangerous thing the progs are doing and it scares the hell out of me. Hillary is on record of supporting this and promising more if she is elected and the bitch is a hairs breadth from winning. It is stunning listening to people explain why they support her. The explanations have no substance to them at all.

      1. The explanations have no substance to them at all.

        I thought that we pretty much devolved into punishing our political enemies.

      2. Re: Suthenboy,

        This shakedown really isnt getting the attention it should.

        That’s because it isn’t going anywhere.

        Idiots like the Jackass (aka Joe) and others think that this shakedown is going to have the same effect as the one against the Tobacco firms because they think there’s a smoking gun. The problem is that while at the time the prosecutions against the Tobacco firms people were well aware that smoking causes cancer, today the number of people who don’t care about climate change or that shrug at the mention of it even if they believe it happens is big enough for this witch hunt not to matter a great deal. It will go nowhere. Also, I don’t think HillRod is really on board with this idea. Exxon is not Phillis Morris and HillRod is not an idiot, unlike the Jackass.

  28. Maybe Exxon pulls a surprise-surprise and announces they’ll de-list from NYSE and run ADR shell through offshore somehow, and remove themselves as a traded equity under any New York jurisdiction.

    Its not like they have to keep pumping fees and bullshit into downtown Manhattan if all they get from New York is shit like this. Is such a scheme possible, or have the laws to ‘keep us safe’ from banksters trapped them in New York-based equity markets?

  29. Since you allude to potential collusion, Ronald, I wonder what you think about this

    http://www.exposedbycmd.org/RAGA-Exxon

    Republican Attorneys General Association meeting with advocacy groups to discuss defense of Exxon. Lamar Smith certainly disagrees with advocacy groups communicating with AGs, although strangely cat has his tongue on this one. I don’t have a problem with either, but you seem like you should, if you’re consistent.

    Collusion? Coordination? I’ll let you decide.

    1. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Everybody went out for lunch. You’re still here in a tepid attempt at relevancy by making yourself look like a fool. You’re not relevant, Jackass.

      1. He is a famous thread corpse-fucker. Hihn is worse, but Joe is up there.

        1. …says the idiot who posts an hour after me.

        2. Make that 2 idiots…mex is still posting on other comments.

    2. Huh, interesting point. It seems problematic when AG’s meet with advocacy groups to discuss political strategy.

  30. Oh, Wait…. New York, Democrats…

    “ExxonMobil is suspected by New York Attorney-General Eric Schneiderman of misleading shareholders about the damage that climate change regulations might do to its business prospects. Scheidnerman and nearly twenty other Democratic attorneys-general have joined together in an effort to prove these suspicions correct. “…

    Back to Follow The Money….
    This is a typical New York Democrat/Socialist ploy to squeeze MONEY out of any and every Business the fucking politicians can accuse of ANYTHING so the politicians can steal the money rather than Earn It.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.