Hillary Clinton Demands Probe of Exxon After Oil Giant Stops Funding Clinton Foundation

[Purveyor]

Hillary Clinton is now supporting a federal investigation of ExxonMobil following the latest disclosures that the giant oil company worked to hide the effects of climate change. Her call for an investigation comes only months after the company decided to stop sponsoring her family’s foundation.

The Clinton Foundation has accepted at least $1 million from ExxonMobil, despite the company’s history of financing challenges to climate science. And Clinton's State Department touted ExxonMobil as an example of how America should look at Iraq as “a business opportunity.”

Clinton’s new call for a Justice Department investigation into ExxonMobil follows a similar call made by her Democratic presidential rivals Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders. She declared in New Hampshire Thursday that a probe was now justified because “there’s a lot of evidence that they misled” the public on the effects of climate change. There has long been ample evidence of ExxonMobil's role in promoting "skeptics" who challenge widely accepted climate science.

A 2013 Drexel University study noted that the company was “heavily involved” in financing the “climate change counter-movement.” Journalist Steve Coll documented the extent of its efforts, saying “multimillions of dollars were spent on this,” and environmental groups estimate that ExxonMobil spent between $16 million and $30 million on such efforts.

more...

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/election-2016-hillary-clinton-demands-probe-exxon-after-oil-giant-stops-funding

[arcane1]

1. America should look at Iraq as “a business opportunity” at the expense of actual Iraqis.

That is not a "progressive" way of thinking.

[Truprogressive85]

3. stop giving the foundation money or you might get investigated - making an offer they cant refuse

But Clinton’s call is a bit more surprising, considering that lobbyists for ExxonMobil have donated to and bundled money for her campaign. According to Mother Jones, ExxonMobil lobbyist Davis Leiter has bundled $36,550 for Clinton’s campaign. The company’s top Washington lobbyist Theresa Fariello has also given the maximum $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign, as did Washington-based Exxon attorney Judith Batty
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/29/3717602/clinton-investigate-exxon/

[Faux pas]

4. Kickin'

[Fred Sanders]

5. Connecting dots so imaginatively used to only be posted in the Creative Conspiracy forum.

[Purveyor]

6. Alert on it you if you have issues... eom

[Fred Sanders]

8. The implication expressed is not offending the terms of service, it is offending intelligence!

[Purveyor]

10. Then my only other suggestion is to use the ignore function so your delicate sensibilities

aren't further 'offended' by my OP's.

[Fred Sanders]

11. Not your OP....link to an OP from some source....what is the source, again?

IBT times, a business-friendly and oil friendly publication....supporting Exxon....not a surprise.

Did Exxon stock drop after Clinton announced supported a probe of the oil giant, like prison stocks did when Clinton announced support for banning private prisons?

[Purveyor]

12. Better yet, I'll add you to the 'list'. Haven't the time for silly fucking games.

See ya...

[thesquanderer]

28. No need to take it personally, he wasn't aiming anything at you

he was aiming at ibtimes and their writer.

[SCantiGOP]

32. Stupid post

Worse answer here. Please add me to
your list too so I won't encounter any more if your conspiratorial drivel.

[Phlem]

36. Why. Are you that lazy you need someone else to do it for you?

[99th_Monkey]

16. It offends my intelligence how Hillary's anti-Exxon rhetoric came 10-days after Bernie called for it

Bernie calling for Federal investigation of Exxon, OCTOBER 20TH
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/20/bernie-sanders-takes-big-oil-calling-criminal-investigation-exxonmobil.html

It only took Clinton 10-DAYS!! .. on the 30th .. to start parroting "What Bernie said" without mentioning that
Bernie had just called for a federal inquiry 10 days before her.

Her conspicuous habit of copying Bernie is as breathtaking as it is nauseating.

[paleotn]

40. Clinton strategy....

ME TOO! ME TOO! ME TOO! (pssst...hey Lloyd (Blankfein), I don't really mean it...it's just to fool the gullible and get elected. You know how it is...these people will vote for me just because I'm a woman....do you believe it?!)

[99th_Monkey]

42. Yes, I got a little worked-up about her "me-too-isms" so just posted this OP

K&R's are most welcome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251750605

[sorechasm]

72. Where Bernie leads, Hillary follows

Shouldn't Bernie get a fee for market-testing her policies?
Which one is supposed to be the bold leader?

[99th_Monkey]

74. Yep. Bernie's an inadvertent canary in her coal mine. nt

[rhett o rick]

35. Only very selectively. The conservatives that don't like to discuss issues like to lock or hide

those posts as CT that goes against their world view. For example, if you speculated that the NSA/CIA was spying on all Americans, bingo-Bango the conservatives would alert like crazy. However, if you speculate that Snowden was selling secrets to Japan, China and/or Russia, the conservatives would not alert. And Progressives never alert for CT.

[giftedgirl77]

7. ....

[hootinholler]

9. Did she tell them to Cut It Out?

[99th_Monkey]

13. No, that's what she told her friends on Wall St.

45 seconds in ...

[Plucketeer]

51. I did so LOVE this moment of Bern

Five more debates to go. And THIS contender wields the axe of truth. Look out, Dame Hillary! Look out.

[99th_Monkey]

14. Hillary's "Demand for a probe" came JUST 10-DAYS AFTER BERNIE called for exactly the same thing

10 fucking DAYS!

His call for a probe was announced Oct. 20th, then just yesterday on the 30th, Hillary makes
a big splash simply parroting what Bernie said. It's becoming comical how she shamelessly
copies him, yet NO ONE is calling her on that .. well, except for those 'rude' Sanders supporters.

[Live and Learn]

15. +1 nt

[HerbChestnut]

17. Thank you.

I thought I had posted exactly what you said in this thread earlier, but I must have been thinking of something else. You are right, and it's becoming more and more obvious. Part of her strategy is to close the gap between herself and Bernie on the issues, therefore minimizing the difference between the two to voters who might not be paying close attention.

[Sunlei]

19. I think both of them are quite similar politically, as we all are.

[99th_Monkey]

20. Bernie and Hillary were NOT "similar" on issues when this campaign began. Give me a break. -nt-

[Sunlei]

24. A shame Senator Sanders didn't start his campaign last year.

It's my wish they both team-up as President and VP. They have always gotten along, these past many years.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

37. The election season is long enough already, right?

Bernie Sanders started his campaign 18 months before the General Election was set to start. How early do we REALLY want to start the political process? I'm a little jealous of Canada's 78-day campaign process, but different political system and all.

I'm more upset that Hillary locked up so much of the invisible/money before anybody else had entered the race. It really undermines the process of democracy. Those endorsements with their superdelegates should have waited until we got MUCH MUCH closer to primary season.

Did the voters pick Hillary or did party bigwigs?

[Sunlei]

49. Mrs. Clinton has about the same backers as she had for 2008.

Sanders didn't do enough over the past 4-6 years if he knew or thought about he intended/wanted to try to be president in 2016.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

62. 18 months should be plenty of time in my opinion.

If we're saying saying presidential candidates must now commit money to presidential exploratory committees 4-6 years in advance of an election then I feel there's something wrong with the system.

For comparison's sake, Obama declared (link) he was running for President later than Sanders did (link) by several days. The difference? Ms. Clinton has been running for years, getting her ducks in order. That whole invisible primary thing really rubs me the wrong way.

[Sunlei]

66. I'm not talking about money. Building a base of supporters/contacts, not just public support.

If Senator Sanders really wanted to run for president he could should have made those contacts & expressed the interest years ago. If he did, those major supporters didn't notice or ignored him for some reason.

He has always said the same things decades ago he does today. Some of the public just happened to notice him and they liked what they heard.

Another part of the D voters hate Mrs. Clinton and he's a Godsend for them. Anyone but Hillary, right?

[PoliticalMalcontent]

68. A little off topic, but other things that rub me the wrong way

Debbie Wasserman Shultz is close to Clinton. No problem there. It's expected as she worked for her campaign in 2008. However, I feel that Ms. Wasserman Shultz in her position as the chair of the Democratic National Committee is perhaps protecting Clinton by limiting the amount of debates, and therefore limiting the amount of exposure than Bernie Sanders can get on a national stage. This is NOT good for the democratic process and should not be rewarded. Steel sharpens steel, right? Let them debate and let the people decide for themselves. That's what is good for democracy.

[Sunlei]

71. I wish all the debates were on free TV, even worse when they are not all free to watch.

I would like to see Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders meet-up many times.

[99th_Monkey]

38. Just to emphasize my point, you may want to check out this OP I just posted

Bernie Calls for Fed. Probe on Exxon, 10-DAYS later, Hillary Parrots Bernie & Makes a Big Splash?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251750605

Not trying to be argumentative, but am interested in any response you might have.

[frylock]

70. You're not going to find many supporters of Sanders that want her anywhere near the WH.

[Sunlei]

73. yes, that's obvious, many Bernie supporters are outspoken-they don't like her.

They like her even less than Bernie likes her

They remind me of Ron Paul supporters a lot. Very passionate and may be extremely disappointed at their primary.

Sometimes they remind me of republican-baggers, when they hate/hated on everything & anything-Obama.

[frylock]

77. I don't like her policies. I don't get caught up in personalities.

[Armstead]

21. They're not on issues of Wealth and Power

Sanders believes we need Fundamental Reform to restore democracy and broaden the economy by reducing the excessive concentration of wealth and power held by Big Corporations, Wall St. and the Oligarch Class.

Clinton, not so much

[Sunlei]

22. yes, for many, many years thats what Senator Sanders has always said.

[Armstead]

25. And he's been absolutely correct for many many years, and if people had taken heed back then....

we wouldn't be in half the mess we are today.

(I should note Sanders and other progressives who were consistently ignored, marginalized and dismissed by the Democratic Establishment over the years.)

[Sunlei]

26. "The people" never heard his voice. Yes, it was his co-workers in washingtondc who seemed to ignore

his voice.

[rhett o rick]

39. HRC helped the Republicons invade Iraq and Sen Sanders was against it. Not "similar" at all. nm

[paleotn]

41. Waaaa?! You're kidding, right?

....I hope you just forgot the "sarcasm" emoticon.

[Ed Suspicious]

56. +1

[Sunlei]

18. How cheap of Exxon Oil to donate only 1 million over 10 years.

[azmom]

27. How much should they have donated?

[Sunlei]

30. probably about 5 million a year to a charity that

helps people in countries they've exploited and drilled in for 100 years.

They can write off donations to charities on their taxes anyway.

[azmom]

31. Would that exclude Clinton's foundation?

[Sunlei]

52. why exclude The Clinton Foundation? They are a legit charity that helps thousands of people.

[azmom]

55. Not as many as you would think.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

[Sunlei]

57. Not many people at the admin level work as free volunteers for any large charity.

I think its just the name Clinton you don't like .

[azmom]

58. Out of 140 million only 9 million was

Spent on aid. You seriously don't see a problem with that?

[Sunlei]

61. No I don't, its a Global Foundation. They provide much more than just 'aid'.

[azmom]

65. You are naive. There is nothing

else. Those numbers come directly from their tax forms. The Foundation is a slush fund.

But, you keep believing whatever you want to believe to make it palatable to vote for her.

[Sunlei]

67. You will not convince me, I do not think its a slush fund and the Clinton Family are criminals.

If you're a Senator Sanders supporter, you are not helping him & I think he would dislike your anti- Clinton smears.

[azmom]

75. I offered facts all you have to do is

Apply a small amount of critical thinking skills.

[Sunlei]

76. alright, I just hope you vote & vote D if your favorite isn't the winner.

All the Democracy we get in America is our one vote. After the election the republic part of our system of government takes over.

[yeoman6987]

33. I image they hive more to organizations the the Clintons

[OnyxCollie]

50. "...to a charity that helps people in countries they've exploited and drilled in for 100 years."

Let me fix that for you:

to a charity that helps exploit people in countries they've exploited and drilled in for 100 years.

Perhaps the most important modern institution in the field of group power-and it contrasts dramatically with Maitland's picture of clubs, religious associations, and charities preferring the hedge of the trust and the anonymity of unincorporated status- is the "foundation" which flourishes in contemporary America.

The foundation is largely an American creation. No doubt the accumulation of vast wealth was one reason for its rise; another-at least in the days when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others perpetuated their names through their now world famous bequests-was unquestionably a desire of wealthy and successful men to purge their consciences before God and man and to justify the acquisitive society which had enabled them to accumulate enormous riches by leaving a vast proportion of their wealth for the benefit of mankind.6 But in recent years these reasons for the earlier foundations have become less important, and the incorporated foundation or trust has become predominantly a business device, a paramount instrument in the struggle between the demands of the modern Welfare State and the wish of the individual entrepreneur to perpetuate his fortune and his name. The greatest and most influential of the foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) are the creations of individuals or families, but the large foundations of the future will increasingly be the creations of corporations. The desires to give and to perpetuate the name of the individual or corporate donor are undoubtedly still important motivations, but the immense growth in the number and size of foundations in recent years7 suggests that business considerations play an increasing role. By either bequeathing or giving during his lifetime a proportion of his estate to a permanent institution established for officially recognized charitable purposes, the donor, usually the controller of an industrial or business empire,8 achieves a number of purposes.9 In the United States gifts to such organizations are exempt from gift taxes, and bequests to them are deductible for estate tax purposes. The organizations themselves are normally exempt from income tax, property tax, and other taxes. A charitable gift intervivos is an allowable deduction from the taxable income of the donor.10 The absence of the latter privilege in English law may be one reason why incorporated charities are not so widespread in Britain (apart, of course, from the vastly greater capital wealth of United States business). Otherwise, motivations for the establishment of charitable companies are very similar." The arithmetics of these benefits vary from year to year and are, of course, subject to legislative changes. Unless, however, there were to be a fundamental change in legislation in regard to charitable gifts,12 the advantages of transferring both capital and annual income away from the personal estate of a taxpayer in the high income brackets or away from a corporation are very considerable.13 But in the age of the managerial revolution and the Welfare State, a motive at least equal to that of providing a suitable mechanism for philanthropy and a tax free reservoir for an otherwise highly taxable income is the power which the foundation gives to the controller of a business or industry to perpetuate his control.14

Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.

The Clinton Foundation - About
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/our-work/by-initiative/clinton-foundation-in-haiti/about.html

The Clinton Foundation has been actively engaged in Haiti since 2009, focusing on economic diversification, private sector investment and job creation in order to create long-term, sustainable economic development. After the devastating earthquake in 2010, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual donors for immediate earthquake relief efforts. Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of $34 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on restoring Haiti's communities, sustainable development, education and capacity building. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation concentrated on creating sustainable economic growth in the four priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, and apparel/manufacturing, working to bring new investors, develop and support local organizations and businesses, and create access to new markets. The Clinton Foundation also continued working to support government efforts to improve Haiti’s business environment and supported programs in education and capacity building.

Washington Backed Famous Brand-Name Contractors in Fight Against Haiti’s Minimum Wage Increase
http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-47/Washington%20Backed%20Famous.asp

The U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levi’s, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.

The factory owners refused to pay 62 cents an hour, or $5 per eight-hour day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. Behind the scenes, the factory owners had the vigorous backing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Embassy, show secret U.S. Embassy cables provided to Haïti Liberté by the transparency-advocacy group WikiLeaks.

The minimum daily wage had been 70 gourdes or $1.75 a day.

The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour – 100 gourdes daily – to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.

Report: State Department-Backed Garment Complex in Haiti Stealing Workers’ Wages
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/17/headlines#10179

A new report by the Worker Rights Consortium has found the majority of workers in Haiti’s garment industry are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally owed due to widespread wage theft. The new evidence builds on an earlier report that found every single one of Haiti’s export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohl’s, Levi’s and Wal-Mart. The report highlighted abuses at the Caracol Industrial Park, a new factory complex heavily subsidized by the U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Clinton Foundation and touted as a key part of Haiti’s post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haiti’s minimum wage for garment workers is between 60 and 90 cents an hour. More than three-quarters of workers interviewed for the report said they could not afford three meals a day.

Clintons' Pet Project for Privatized 'Aid' to Haiti Stealing Workers' Wages: Report
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-4

Haiti's Caracol Industrial Park—the U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation pet project to deliver aid and reconstruction to earthquake-ravaged Haiti in the form of private investment—is systematically stealing its garment workers' wages, paying them 34 percent less than minimum wage set by federal law, a breaking report from the Worker Rights Consortium reveals.

Critics charge that poverty wages illustrate the deep flaws with corporate models of so-called aid. "The failure of the Caracol Industrial Park to comply with minimum wage laws is a stain on the U.S.'s post-earthquake investments in Haiti and calls into question the sustainability and effectiveness of relying on the garment industry to lead Haiti's reconstruction," said Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in an interview with Common Dreams.

Caracol is just one of five garment factories profiled in this damning report, released publicly on Wednesday, which finds that "the majority of Haitian garment workers are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally due as a result of the factories’ theft of their income." This is due to systematic employer cheating on piece-work and overtime, as well as failure to pay employees for hours worked.
...
Financers included the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. State Department, and the Clinton Foundation, who invested a total of $224 million with promises to uphold high labor standards. Its anchor tenant is the Korean S&H Global factory, which sells garments to Walmart, Target, Kohl's, and Old Navy, according to the report.

The Clinton-Bush Fund has closed up shop in Haiti: Here are the fruits of neoliberal "charity"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415607

[Sunlei]

53. The USA can't even raise the Federal minimum wage for their workers. You expect a Charity that empow

empowers people to ""self employment"" and school education(including college educations) for entire communities to raise worker pay in foreign countries?

[OnyxCollie]

54. That addresses nothing that I posted.

Lame attempt to deflect.

[Sunlei]

59. deflect what? foundation report about ONE country they help. And Levi blue jeans won't raise the 68

cents an hour they pay Haiti workers to sew crap for them?

They pay our USA prison workers 20 cents an hour.

[OnyxCollie]

60. Clinton State Department pressures Haitian gov't on behalf of Foundation donors.

Deflect from that.

[Sunlei]

63. They can do that, speak up to the countries government. Plenty of charities do that, even tiny char

charities. Its because of the name Clinton, right? Lets be honest.

[OnyxCollie]

64. Oh, FFS.

Vote for Hillary; you deserve her.

[Sunlei]

69. I may if she wins the primary, thanks! Hope you do too Onyx Collie.

[nc4bo]

23. Hmmmmm

[IMG][/IMG]

[L0oniX]

29. Pay backs are hell.

[MisterP]

46. the expression's now "back pay is a bitch," perhaps?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. No doubt the $Mil will be returned with a frown and Gah!!

[Divernan]

43. Classic Clintnon - Stop the quid & she goes negative on the pro quo

[Gman]

44. ..." The Clinton Foundation has accepted at least $1 million from ExxonMobil, despite the company’s

"The Clinton Foundation has accepted at least $1 million from ExxonMobil, despite the company’s history of financing challenges to climate science."

Ummm... The donations were over years. We just found out what Exxin knew about climate change a few months ago.

[Dem2]

45. Good for her

I guess their money bought no favors - can't complain about that.

[SunSeeker]

48. +1

[AzDar]

47. K & R