Congressmen Defending ExxonMobil Against Investigation Received Almost $100,000 From Company

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
"Exxon has a lot of friends in Congress, but they didn’t come cheap. A study from the Public Accountability Initiative finds 13 members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology collectively have received at least $98,270 in contributions from ExxonMobil employees and political action committees connected to the company.

Those same 13 committee members, all of them Republican, recently launched a counter inquiry into an investigation scrutinizing whether Exxon deliberately misled the public over the reality of climate change. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched the investigation into Exxon in November; in March he was joined by attorneys general from five other states, plus the attorney general for the Virgin Islands.

In May, the Republican members of the House science committee started their own probe into the Schneiderman investigation. In an open letter to Schneiderman, they described his inquiry as “a coordinated attempt to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations and scientists of their First Amendment rights and ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution.”

In addition to the nearly $100,000 in donations related to Exxon, the Public Accountability Initiative found the 13 committee members had received $2,680,383 in overall contributions from the oil and gas industry. These findings were based on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, and how far back the data went varied depending on which House member was being scrutinized.

Schneiderman’s investigation was intended to look at whether Exxon had made claims about climate change that were belied by its own scientific research. He opened the inquiry just a few months after the Union of Concerned Scientists said it had obtained documents showing Exxon has been aware of the danger posed by man-made climate change for more than 30 years."

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...-against-investigation-received-almost-100000


This is what you get with dirty elections. Exxon has effectively bought the committee responsible for regulating the fossil fuel industry and now they're trying to obstruct any investigations into determining if they knew about the effects of climate change decades ago.
 
Hillary Clinton received over 145 million dollars to allow 20% of the US's nuclear reserves be controlled by a Russian company... I think hands down she wins in the corruption arena!!!
 
Patently
FALSE


"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."


If you take into account the investors interested in the Uranium deal over 145 million dollars flowed into the Clinton Foundation from interested parties.
 
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."


If you take into account the investors interested in the Uranium deal over 145 million dollars flowed into the Clinton Foundation from interested parties.
Patently false.
Try the internet
 
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."


If you take into account the investors interested in the Uranium deal over 145 million dollars flowed into the Clinton Foundation from interested parties.
What's the allegation against Hillary Clinton? The reason this is a story is the potential that there was some quid pro quo involved: that in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or the speech Bill Clinton gave in Russia, Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to make approval of this sale happen. It need not be explicit, but at the very least there has to be a connection between donations and official action that Clinton took.

What's the evidence for that allegation? There isn't any, at least not yet. The only evidence is timing: people who would benefit from the sale made donations to the foundation at around the same time the matter was before the government.

What's the evidence in Clinton's favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn't have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS's work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.

Furthermore, the official who was the State Department's representative on CFIUS at the time, Jose Hernandez, told Time magazine that Clinton did not participate in the evaluation of this deal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter," he said.

So in this case, we have no evidence of a quid pro quo, and we don't have evidence that Hillary Clinton took any action at all with regard to this sale, in favor of the interests of the donors or otherwise. In interviews, Schweitzer has referred repeated to "dozens of examples" and "a pattern" in which donations are made to the foundation and official action by Hillary Clinton occurs thereafter. His book hasn't come out, so we don't yet know what he's referring to, but in the uranium case, there doesn't appear to be any official action Hillary Clinton took one way or another.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ever...hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4
 
What's the allegation against Hillary Clinton? The reason this is a story is the potential that there was some quid pro quo involved: that in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or the speech Bill Clinton gave in Russia, Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to make approval of this sale happen. It need not be explicit, but at the very least there has to be a connection between donations and official action that Clinton took.

What's the evidence for that allegation? There isn't any, at least not yet. The only evidence is timing: people who would benefit from the sale made donations to the foundation at around the same time the matter was before the government.

What's the evidence in Clinton's favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn't have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS's work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.

Furthermore, the official who was the State Department's representative on CFIUS at the time, Jose Hernandez, told Time magazine that Clinton did not participate in the evaluation of this deal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter," he said.

So in this case, we have no evidence of a quid pro quo, and we don't have evidence that Hillary Clinton took any action at all with regard to this sale, in favor of the interests of the donors or otherwise. In interviews, Schweitzer has referred repeated to "dozens of examples" and "a pattern" in which donations are made to the foundation and official action by Hillary Clinton occurs thereafter. His book hasn't come out, so we don't yet know what he's referring to, but in the uranium case, there doesn't appear to be any official action Hillary Clinton took one way or another.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ever...hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4


Hillary Clinton is the weaker in the fight against a Trump presidency..the WEAKER.

She's gonna lose..don't say we didn't warn you.
 
Hillary Clinton received over 145 million dollars to allow 20% of the US's nuclear reserves be controlled by a Russian company... I think hands down she wins in the corruption arena!!!
That's cool, you should start a thread about it

What is your opinion of the 13 republican members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology who have received almost $100K for their campaigns this cycle (and more than $2.5 million total) from the fossil fuel industry who are trying to obstruct the NY attorney generals investigation into Exxon?
 
That's cool, you should start a thread about it

What is your opinion of the 13 republican members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology who have received almost $100K for their campaigns this cycle (and more than $2.5 million total) from the fossil fuel industry who are trying to obstruct the NY attorney generals investigation into Exxon?
I'm on a phone.
Put that video of Boehner talking about him passing out checks from the tobacco industry right before a vote on the house floor
 
Padwan,

I have consistently tried to explain to you how power corrupts and that we need to reduce that power to reduce that corruption.

Just like guns, you think taking money away from the politicians will somehow make things more fair when it will simply give an advantage to the corrupt politicians. So we will have less honest politicians and more crooked ones.

Would you like to explain how the Clinton Foundation which has a terrible track record of 10% charitable giving vs 90% operating costs has managed to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars? You want to point to corruption in politics when you are ready to vote the most corrupt politician in history into office.

That is why I find your post completely hypocritical. You want to talk about Republicans getting hundreds of thousands of dollars and not talk about Hillary getting hundreds of millions...
 
Padwan,

I have consistently tried to explain to you how power corrupts and that we need to reduce that power to reduce that corruption.

Just like guns, you think taking money away from the politicians will somehow make things more fair when it will simply give an advantage to the corrupt politicians. So we will have less honest politicians and more crooked ones.

Would you like to explain how the Clinton Foundation which has a terrible track record of 10% charitable giving vs 90% operating costs has managed to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars? You want to point to corruption in politics when you are ready to vote the most corrupt politician in history into office.

That is why I find your post completely hypocritical. You want to talk about Republicans getting hundreds of thousands of dollars and not talk about Hillary getting hundreds of millions...
I'm not voting for Clinton for that exact reason, so you might like to reassess your position
 
My position wouldnt change regardless of who you voted for. You gonna vote Trump then? LOL!!
 
My position wouldnt change regardless of who you voted for. You gonna vote Trump then? LOL!!
How can you contend that my position is hypocritical if I'm not voting for Clinton because she's shown the same kind of special interest for special interests as the republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology committee?

I'm not voting this election
 
How can you contend that my position is hypocritical if I'm not voting for Clinton because she's shown the same kind of special interest for special interests as the republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology committee?

I'm not voting this election

Fair enough, you are not being hypocritical. You are pointing out a molehill while mount Vesuvius erupts behind you.

Businessmen donate to campaigns because politicians can affect their businesses. It is legal extortion. If you donate to me I may be able to do something for you...

The only way to get the money out, all the money, the legal and illegal money is to create an atmosphere where politicians dont have that level of influence.

And the only way to do that is take power away from the politicians....
 
Fair enough, you are not being hypocritical. You are pointing out a molehill while mount Vesuvius erupts behind you.

Businessmen donate to campaigns because politicians can affect their businesses. It is legal extortion. If you donate to me I may be able to do something for you...

The only way to get the money out, all the money, the legal and illegal money is to create an atmosphere where politicians dont have that level of influence.

And the only way to do that is take power away from the politicians....
If you take power away from politicians, you take away their ability to regulate industry. Without regulation, corporations would be able to do whatever they wanted.

A more effective method that would eliminate the influence of special interests and limit the power of politicians is to take away their ability to fund political campaigns. If a special interest can't buy influence, a politician is limited to representing their constituents because they're beholden to their vote, not corporate money.
 
If you take power away from politicians, you take away their ability to regulate industry. Without regulation, corporations would be able to do whatever they wanted.

A more effective method that would eliminate the influence of special interests and limit the power of politicians is to take away their ability to fund political campaigns. If a special interest can't buy influence, a politician is limited to representing their constituents because they're beholden to their vote, not corporate money.

How does this address the corruption I cited?

A crooked politician is still going to take a bribe to change their vote. Just look at Hillary Clinton.
 
Back
Top