DOJ refers Exxon "climate crime " to FBI for decision on action, if any

The decision about whether to investigate ExxonMobil Corporation’s advocacy on climate change is now in the FBI’s hands.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), which received multiple requests to probe Exxon for potential legal action, has sent the case to the FBI for its consideration, it told a pair of Democratic lawmakers.

“As a courtesy, we have forwarded your correspondence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” DOJ wrote to Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), who asked for the probe.

“The FBI is the investigative arm of the department, upon which we rely to conduct the initial fact finding in federal cases. The FBI will determine whether an investigation is warranted,” Peter Kadzik, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, wrote.

DOJ sent the letter in January, but the lawmakers only released it this week. InsideClimate News first reported on the letter.

The development still means Democrats and activists are far from their goal of getting Exxon investigated and potentially punished for its actions on climate change.

More at The Hill

h/t to Marc Morano of Climate Depot

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 3, 2016 3:01 pm

The FBI gets to define policy, now?
I don’t get it…

Reply to  simple-touriste
March 3, 2016 3:27 pm

It looks to me like the DOJ is passing the buck.

Reply to  commieBob
March 3, 2016 4:23 pm

What would be truly hilarious is the FBI turning the tables on those who push this trash in the first place. Remember, for 20+ years, we’ve been told skeptic climate scientists (and folks such as Watts) manufacture doubt from thin air about settled science at the behest of ‘big oil,’ From what I’ve seen, there’s a case to be made that particular enviro-activists are the ones who saw a need to manufacture doubt about the credibility of skeptic scientists, using tactics that may have strayed into libel/slander territory.

Reply to  commieBob
March 3, 2016 4:52 pm

Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says:
March 3, 2016 at 4:23 pm
… particular enviro-activists are the ones who saw a need to manufacture doubt about the credibility of skeptic scientists, …

If the DOJ goes after Exxon, the enviro-activists won’t be part of the case and will be safe unless Exxon can show collusion between them and the DOJ. On the other hand, if Exxon can find a way to drag them into the case, life will be very uncomfortable for them. Every email and text going back twenty years will be found. There will be plenty of incriminating/embarassing evidence. But they probably won’t get dragged into the case.

Reply to  commieBob
March 4, 2016 10:05 am

This is a “punt”.
DOJ knows there’s nothing illegal here, so they send it to die at the FBI.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  commieBob
March 4, 2016 2:34 pm

The FBI has been watching me for weeks. They leave their car running outside my house. Last week I followed when they left. They went to an Exxon station for gas! How deep does this go? Who gets their purchase points? Should I jump the White House fence to tell the president? That’s what other people do.

Farmer Ted.
Reply to  commieBob
March 6, 2016 1:40 pm

If it dies at the FBI it should be very, very dead. So dead that it should take a fair bit else down with it.

Reply to  simple-touriste
March 3, 2016 5:42 pm

The EPA routinely tries to enforce regulations that don’t exist through invoking the general duty clause (in short, Thou shalt not pollute). It’s going on concerning flares right now (they are forcing companies to put more monitoring equipment and better controls without writing any regulations outside of refineries). Most of the time they succeed because companies realize that it will cost a fortune to fight, and even if they win, it will only cause them to receive repeated, punitive inspections and be put under scrutiny that no compliance system can withstand.

Reply to  benofhouston
March 3, 2016 6:13 pm

It is called “Death by a thousand cuts”. The socialists are masters at this, the EPA and the DOE are prime examples.

Janice Moore
March 3, 2016 3:12 pm

Exxon legal department:
@ DOJ: “Go ahead. Make my day.”

(youtube — Clint Eastwood)
And make us science realists’ day, too. The facts will be used by Exxon in their responding pleadings, their depositions, and in their interviews about it on TV… . GREAT publicity for science truth.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2016 3:38 pm

I’m unsure if Exon will want the bad publicity the liberal media would give them. They might just try to work out a deal. Paying more protection money is one thought.

F. Ross
Reply to  Tim
March 3, 2016 3:52 pm

Sadly, I agree.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Tim
March 3, 2016 3:57 pm

I don’t know what Exxon will do but could the PR be worse than what they’ve already gone through? (Big oil, Exxon Valdis etc.)
I hope they stick to their guns, Tell them to stick it where “green” turns brown.
Government controlling opposing policy opinions?

Reply to  Tim
March 3, 2016 4:01 pm

I suspect a shakedown, too. They recently forced the big banks to fork over tens of billions, while charging no single person with a crime. So the banks will jack up the fees they charge us on our accounts and the other services they provide. It’s a way for the government to get more revenues to waste via legal extortion rather than taxation. Because Congress has to vote to raise taxes, but the bureaucracy is largely unaccountable to voters. They’re turning the bureaucratic administrative state into a gangster government.

Reply to  Tim
March 3, 2016 5:19 pm

You’re exactly right. It’s a shakedown, just like when Obama assessed “$20 billion” as extortion for the Deepwater Horizon accident — the day after it happened, and before there was any evidence of wrongdoing.
And what happened five years after the accident? A few months ago BP agreed to pay $20.8 billion, an outrageous act of extortion. The same thing is happening with VW’s emission problem, and with American companies in France.
There is no more ethics in government. They steal on any pretext, simply because they can. Who’s going to stop them?

Reply to  Tim
March 3, 2016 7:37 pm

Seriously, what does Exxon care about bad publicity when it comes to environuts? They are not your typical Exxon stock holder.

Reply to  Tim
March 3, 2016 9:36 pm

ExxonMobil is a principled company and I bet will vigorously defend itself with facts and the current laws of the land.

Reply to  Tim
March 4, 2016 6:40 am

Groty: It’s worse than that. When companies raise their rates to cover extra taxes and fees charged by govt. Consumers rarely blame the govt, they usually blame greedy businessmen who don’t care about people like us. ™

Joel Snider
Reply to  Tim
March 4, 2016 11:16 am

I agree with Gunga Din – Exxon (and all targeted industries) should know by now that greenie persecution cannot be bought away – they’ll take your money and use it to screw you that same day with a clear and smiling face. Eventually, you’re going to have to draw the line and fight. You can put it off for a while, but eventually it’s going to have to get down to it.

Reply to  Tim
March 4, 2016 1:10 pm

So, for ‘Government’ read ‘Kleptocracy’ – or, perhaps, ‘Self-perpetuating kleptocracy’.
So sad – the ‘West’ had high ideals – duty, honour, and that – and we’re descending into a sub-Nietzschean underworld, where even the moustaches are smaller, it seems.
Sic transit Gloria Swanson.
March 3, 2016 3:13 pm

[You have been told before, post no links without any explanation. -mod]

Michael Jankowski
Reply to
March 3, 2016 4:48 pm

That deals with mercury you moron.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 3, 2016 5:22 pm


March 3, 2016 3:15 pm

Maybe Exxon should leave the U.S. as soon as possible.
Fossil Free, Project of
List of 505 organizations committed to divesting from fossil fuel from around the world.
Religious and medical organizations are included.
Objective to make fossil fuel companies worthless?

Reply to  Barbara
March 3, 2016 3:25 pm

Sure, and you can rely on wind and solar exclusively, right? You first!
Wake up America! These people have no friggin clue.

Reply to  ossqss
March 4, 2016 1:32 pm

On that topic, a local solar outfit is running ads slanderous of the traditional energy industries. One of the ads accuses the electric utilities of raising rates out of greed, citing their lower price by comparison. Completely neglecting how traditional electric utilities are forced to subsidize residential solar. Other ads compare fossil fuels to very silly conceptional energy sources, and how complex those energy sources are. Neglecting how solar would be completely unreliable without the other sources backing it up.

Reply to  ossqss
March 5, 2016 5:40 am

Wow!!! That Prager University is a gold mind. Thanks for posting that.

Reply to  Barbara
March 3, 2016 3:25 pm

The value of any company is the total present value of future cash flow that will be available to the shareholders of the company. Little or nothing has changed in terms of that total future cash flow. For the moment, the price of oil is low. It will not always be so. The lower the price of a share of a company that I feel is selling at a discount to the present value of its future cash flow, the more I like it. I get to buy out my partners in the company for less. Divesting shares by organizations is their choice. Buying shares that they might divest might be my choice.
There are certain industries that I do not hold in my portfolio. Oil and gas are not among them.

george e. smith
Reply to  ShrNfr
March 3, 2016 3:55 pm

Not so on your value of any company. You also need to subtract the amount of corporate taxes collected by the company as a courtesy to the treasury. The share holders get no benefit from moneys the company collects from employees, customers, and share holders.
The treasury should do its own tax collecting, and not delegate it to corporations.
No Corporation has in its articles of incorporation, any mechanism for paying a tax bill.

Reply to  Barbara
March 3, 2016 4:28 pm

A move like these two congressmen made requires backing from other people or organizations. They wouldn’t stick their necks out like this in a election year if they didn’t have backing unless they are not running for re-election.

Reply to  Barbara
March 3, 2016 6:29 pm, Feb.11, 2016
17 Members of Congress Introduce “Keep It In the Ground Act”
Ted Lieu, (CA-33)
Mark DeSaulnier, (CA-11)

george e. smith
Reply to  Barbara
March 4, 2016 7:04 am

So I’m not too good at texting lingo.
I got the B unch of I diots part but can’t Figure the F out yet ?

Reply to  Barbara
March 4, 2016 11:04 am

Addison County Independent, Vermont, Dec.8, 2014
‘McKibben to take new role in, a group he co-founded’
Scroll down to: Recent Milestones
“One month later, the U.S. Senate’s Democratic Caucus (which includes Vermont’s Patrick Leahy and Independent Bernie Sanders) blocked the passage of a bill that would have authorized the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Louisiana.”

Reply to  Barbara
March 4, 2016 1:03 am

ExxonMobil et al know better than to worry about such a meaningless gesture as slacktivist’s calls for divestment. Especially when the relinquished stock is bought up as quickly as it is divested by sensible investors who haven’t converted to climastrology. George Soros is a good example, buying up coal stocks while they’re going cheap; even though he claims to be a gullible warming believer.
If the objective is to make fossil fuel companies worthless, it’s as certain to fail as e-mail campaigns encouraging motorists to not buy petrol on a particular day to shock the retail fuel chains into lowering their prices. Or to boycott one brand so they’ll lower their prices and start a price war.
…Yeah, right.
The only worry is that with energy stocks depressed (for actual economic reasons unrelated to a few demented investors spitting the dummy), it is financial investment companies who are buying it all up. So in the not too distant future bankers will own much of your energy outright; look to see who owns US shale oil and gas operators who are currently on the brink of bankruptcy once the current boom/bust cycle turns.
Actually, having said that, the tiger is positioning itself to pick over some of the bones, so it’s not all bad news.

Reply to  Barbara
March 4, 2016 10:11 am

Doesn’t seem to be doing too much.
XOM is still #3 with a market cap of $342.6 billion, behind AAPL ($572 billion) and GOOG ($488.4 billion)

Gunga Din
March 3, 2016 3:17 pm

First RICO, now this.
“Hello,Silence, my old friend.
We’ll try to shut them up again…”

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 3, 2016 6:16 pm


March 3, 2016 3:20 pm

It’s more show and you better hope for democracy sake that it goes to the FBI to fade away. Otherwise you’re all in trouble. It does tell you how warped DOJ has been over the past 7 years. Maybe they could tell us all about the political enemies list they worked on in recent years that lead to nothing but were designed to scare and end careers of the targets.

March 3, 2016 3:27 pm

I wish someone could tell me precisely WHAT LAWS Exxon is supposed to have broken??

Gunga Din
Reply to  katherine009
March 3, 2016 3:35 pm

Thou shalt have no other Cause before ours?

george e. smith
Reply to  katherine009
March 3, 2016 4:06 pm

Well Katherine, Exxon is being investigated for adding water to their gasoline, disguised in the form of an alcohol molecule so nobody will notice; well except for the lousy gas mileage they get from the watered down gasoline. I’m quite capable of adding my own water to the gasoline I buy, so I don’t need a criminal enterprise like Exxon doing that for me.
Got the picture. Adding water (lots of it) to our gasoline, is very popular in Iowa; and it beats working an honest job for a living.

Reply to  george e. smith
March 3, 2016 4:39 pm

Everyday science lesson, now take some solid Sodium and drop it into normal `oil`, or `mineral oil` or most other sorts of light oil and watch the sustained reaction with all that nasty water in there. Its either a crime or its not to put that water in there,
in Blighty the same goes for almost any meat (including bacon) you buy through the supermarket, etc etc
no crime comitted

Reply to  katherine009
March 3, 2016 4:20 pm

… the Defendants have engaged in and executed – and continue to engage in and execute – a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers link

The above wording comes from the U.S. Government’s racketeering case against Big Tobacco. I’m guessing that the case against Big Oil will look the same.
Given the political nature of the case, I sure wouldn’t bet money on the outcome if this ever gets to court. I’ve seen some absolutely perverse judgments.

Janice Moore
Reply to  katherine009
March 3, 2016 4:51 pm

Apparently, none, Katherine (with regard to the above post’s topic). The issue the DOJ is using as an excuse is, apparently, “… whether to investigate ExxonMobil Corporation’s advocacy on climate change.”
(Source: above-linked 3/3/16 “The Hill” article here: )
Good question!
@ Gunga Din — and apt quip. (for R.A., too)

Janice Moore
Reply to  katherine009
March 3, 2016 4:53 pm
March 3, 2016 3:32 pm

Well, you see, if the FBI is “told to investigate Exxon” (for some sort of assumed “crime” of actually producing energy) then Oboma’s Department of Selected inJustices doesn’t have time to investigate the actual criminal behaivor of certain past Secretaries of State who transmitted state and military and satellite secret information about ourselves, our allies, and our enemies on an open email account on a server kept in a bathroom by a mom-and-pop email company who happen to have donated to that Secretary of State ….
But I can say that, because the IRS already has been auditing me for several years now based on my political and religious views. Which is also illegal.

Gunga Din
Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 3, 2016 3:38 pm

See my reply to katherine009 above. 😎

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 3, 2016 4:54 pm

Mr. Cook, your audit history is very interesting. I was audited nine times in fourteen years – and won my appeal every single time. I am on numerous libertarian and tea party mailing lists. I finally changed my voter registration to Democrat in 2010. I have not been audited since then. [I remain a Libertarian/Republican, but I am too busy with my family to spend that much time fighting baseless harassment.]

Monna Manhas
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
March 3, 2016 9:01 pm

I’m Canadian and I find this bizarre – can someone please explain to me – do you have to declare your political affiliation when you register to vote in the US? How are you supposed to maintain voter confidentiality? And how is it the business of anyone in your government who you vote for?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
March 3, 2016 9:44 pm

Hi, Monna,
There are different rules in different states. You don’t have to declare your party in most states, but, apparently you must in some. Some states, I think, have separate ballots for Democrats and for Republicans, forcing you to vote a straight ticket in a PRIMARY election, but not in the general. You can just say nothing in many (most?) states and I think you can always just say you are “Independent.” I have never joined nor declared myself to be partial to a particular political party and have voted almost every election of my life since I turned 18. I vote Republican every time, though, for liberty and free markets reasons. It sounds like (and this is ILLEGAL — just done anyway by the Obama IRS) politically targeted audits are aimed at any NON-Democrat, so, the guy who said he was a D had no other option to be under the radar.
Again, it is illegal for the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) to target taxpayers based on anything like religion, political affiliation or the like. It is just that the Puppet in Chief’s henchpersons go ahead and do a lot of illegal (mainly as in UN-Constitiutional) acts anyway. There are lots of lawsuits going on at this time over liberties that have been trampled on, e.g., property takings (whether by forced sale to the govt. or by regulation so limiting the use that the value is significantly reduced), but they take years to play out, so the wicked people in office, now, just go right on with business as usual.
The IRS scandal was a big deal, but the Puppet’s people controlled the process and while there are civil procedures and causes of action to stop Barry Soetoro, et. al., the Repub.s are so riddled with RINOS and spineless toads that they didn’t succeed in prosecuting the head of the IRS to any serious degree. Too many are like John Boehner. I suspect that many of our Republicans have done things they are ashamed to have known and are being blackmailed. It is just too weird how wimpy so many are, how MUCH they cowtow to the Democrats wishes. So, Lerner (IIRC) “got off.” As did the brazenly corrupt former EPA head whats-her-name (Lisa ??) — she was ultra vires for excluding from the fact finding for EPA’s CO2 rulemaking a big chunk of “best available science.”
And on and on. This is the most (or perhaps, a dead heat with F.D.R.’s) corrupt administration we have ever endured. Waaaay worse than Nixon’s bad acts toward his political opponents. The Barack “God d__n America” (sat in the pews of his pastor, Rev. Wright who said, that for over 20 years) O.’s administration is to Nixon as the garbage can you take out to the street is to the Manila garbage dump. Shockingly (well, no one is shocked anymore) corrupt.
Sure wonder when God will intervene!
I haven’t given up hope.
Things have looked very bad in this world, for a very long time, but, they turned around. This political horror show can, too.
Sorry you were stuck with ME answering you again. Perhaps, you could ask your good Q on another, more popular thread. No one much is hanging out here, now.
Best wishes to you, O Valiant and True Neighbor to the North,

Janice Moore
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
March 3, 2016 9:58 pm

P.S. Monna: I left out how the IRS could find out your religion or political party (other than to get a ballot — and that would mean they illegally got ahold of your ballot coded number that linked the ballot to your name — it is secret to the vote counters if the process is done properly, but, there is a code that can be looked up). They also use membership lists of organizations like Human Life of {State Name}. That is how they could get me, I have donated to Human Life of Washington (state) many times and am on their mailing list. My income was too low to file, this year — yay! Being unemployed is neat! (heh)
Really, though, you gotta wonder how STUPID are these people? The political fall-out from the IRS thing was BIG. Older (as in over 65 or so) lifelong Democrats were appalled (and are appalled a the O admin. in general, now that they’ve seen O and Co. in action). The small gain in what…. some intimidation …. ?? to get the conservative to…. ?? what??…. was FAR outweighed by the scum-bag image it has given the Democrats in office. That is partly (mainly?) why that communist Barry Sanders is doing so well — he’s not “the man” in their eyes.
Okay. Finally done!

Reply to  Pillage Idiot
March 3, 2016 10:02 pm

Since the Democrat party has moved more leftward since the days of JFK, they have had to adopt a more autocratic and controlling stance toward those not of their ideology. In the U.S. there is much more diversity of thought amongst those right of center – just look at all the turmoil in the Republican primaries – trying to find the right counter balance to a socialist and a .

Monna Manhas
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
March 4, 2016 10:56 am

Thanks Janice.
I’m appalled – by more than one of the points you brought up.
If the ballots are coded, then there is NO confidentiality at all.
The only thing that Canada Revenue Agency (the equivalent to your IRS) can share with Elections Canada is your name and address – and you have to specifically agree to that every year when you file your tax return.
I have often observed that Americans – who staunchly maintain that they live in the “greatest country in the world” – seem to hate, loathe and fear their government. I am starting to understand why.

Monna Manhas
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
March 4, 2016 11:03 am

Forgot to mention – Elections Canada can’t share anything with CRA, because they don’t know who you voted for. The ballots are not coded.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
March 4, 2016 1:43 pm

I’m Canadian and I find this bizarre – can someone please explain to me – do you have to declare your political affiliation when you register to vote in the US?

In my state you don’t have to declare a party ever. However, when the primary rolls around, if you want a party to run a particular candidate for President then you have to declare that party. You will be given a ballot that has only that party’s candidates on it (along with general state and local issues).
You do not have to declare a party in the general election.
What happens sometimes, a weakness in our system, is that if one party’s candidate is a “given” (ie Obama in the last election) then some of their party’s voters will, for the primary, declare for the other party and vote for who they’d like to be his opponent. (I believe that’s how the Republicans ended up running Romney against Obama.)
It should be noted and emphasized that the primary process is NOT part of the Constitution. That’s why, as Janice pointed out, it’s up to the individual states how their delegates to the Electoral College are chosen.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
March 4, 2016 3:54 pm

Hi, Monna,
I agree. There should be NO code or way to track back to a specific voter. Much of this junk came out of the “hanging chad” close election of Bush over Gore in 2000.
Re: The United States is the finest country in the world. Well… of course! 🙂 Seriously, I think, even with its flaws, and even yet in 2016, the good far outweighs the bad. And it is fixable! 🙂
And, I have no doubt that you, and rightfully so, think the same of your lovely Canada. Boy, are we blessed to have you for a neighbor!!
Thanks for the acknowledgement.

4 Eyes
Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 4, 2016 1:31 am

In Oz, no politician can tell the police, federal or state, to investigate anything. It’s called the separation of powers. It’s surprising and dismaying that the FBI can be told to investigate anything.

Reply to  4 Eyes
March 4, 2016 6:47 am

The FBI is a part of the Dept of Justice, which in turn is part of the Executive Branch, under the president.
The head of the DoJ and FBI are both presidential appointees.

michael hart
March 3, 2016 3:54 pm

Is Rep. Ted Lieu the congressman for Leonardo DiCaprio’s patch? Just curious.

Reply to  michael hart
March 3, 2016 4:55 pm

Ted Lieu, Calif. 33rd District since Jan.2015, replaced Henry Waxman.
Mark DeSaulnier, Calif. 11th district since Jan.2015, Contra Costa County/Bay area.
Both “freshmen” congressmen.

Peter Miller
March 3, 2016 3:55 pm

Wow! This is taking ecolunacy to a new height.
Let’s take resources from the guys fighting crime and terrorism and get them to fight the feverish nightmares of a few ecoloons, the sort which have no practical knowledge of how the real world works.

March 3, 2016 4:02 pm

I second this being the DoJ passing, but keeping the action alive. If they had a case they more than likely would keep it. They probably don’t have a case, but need to keep the charade going.

March 3, 2016 4:03 pm

For a crime to have been committed, doesn’t someone have to be harmed? Even if Exon misled there stockholders, how could they prove damages. I think they need to prove intent to mislead as well.

Pat Frank
March 3, 2016 4:10 pm

I’ve read the entire Exxon climate memo. There’s absolutely nothing criminal or conspiratorial in it. It’s a straight-up probability estimate. The authors conclude there’s no way to know what, if anything CO2 will do.
And given that climate models were even more crude than they are today — and they’re predictively valueless today — there’s no way that Exxon or anyone else could have foreseen a climate catastrophe. There’s none visible today, either.

Reply to  Pat Frank
March 3, 2016 5:15 pm

Of course, the critical theory is to conflate CO2 with actual pollution.

Reply to  Pat Frank
March 4, 2016 10:07 am

Exxon could not have foreseen a climate catastrophe because as you said, there is no climate catastrophe. Exxon can’t be tied to , or prosecuted for something that hasn’t happened.
This is a publicity stunt. The DOJ passed it to the FBI to make it look like they are taking action, and the FBI will come back and say there is nothing criminal here, because there isn’t.

Bruce Cobb
March 3, 2016 4:26 pm

Hey FBI, here’s a hot potato; catch!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 3, 2016 4:54 pm


March 3, 2016 4:34 pm

This is entering the Lysenko phase of CAGW. Except our equivalent of Stalin leaves office next January. This just brushes a Sen. Whitehouse inspired inquiry off the table til then. The NY AG annouced a similar probe, for similar political reasons. It will go nowhere, also. Being an oil and gas company is not illegal. Selling customers fuel products they want is not illegal. Heck, tobacco companies still legally sell cigarette ‘coffin nails’. Tobacco companies used to market that smoking was healthy when they knew it wasn’t. All Exxon did was market that if you put Tony the Tiger in your cars tank, it vroomed. And it did.

Reply to  ristvan
March 3, 2016 4:52 pm

I would think most would welcome the scientific discovery phase of a potential trial of this sort. Lot’s to prove in the end. I am still hoping such discovery takes place in other litigation currently being attempted. That smoking gun just doesn’t exist yet, but they are trying hard to creat it.

george e. smith
Reply to  ristvan
March 4, 2016 7:09 am

For a while there I thought you were referring to Idi Amin 2.0 !

Michael Jankowski
March 3, 2016 4:51 pm

They should prosecute all the activists who believe and spread the notion of catastrophic global warming yet continue to use fossil fuels.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 3, 2016 4:58 pm

Yes! They’ll all plead not guilty by reason of insanity. And prevail. Sigh.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2016 5:00 pm

“Yes! However, they’ll. Double sigh, heh.

Pillage Idiot
March 3, 2016 5:05 pm

If the warmist activists want to resort to scorched-earth lawfare, then it is certainly time to turn the tables on them.
How many people died from global warming today? I would posit a number very close to zero. How many people died from starvation today? The number is probably close to 25,000 world-wide. Another 25,000 will die tomorrow. By Monday morning 100,000 people will be dead!
I think the production of cereal grain crops is the most important factor in the world today for human well being. I believe an increase in atmospheric CO2 content will lead to an increase in cereal grain production. How many lives will this save every single day?
Anyone want to file a RICO case against the two California congressmen and charge them with complicity in the deaths of 25,000 people/day?

Reply to  Pillage Idiot
March 3, 2016 6:25 pm

You can add the death of many people in England because of restrictions on coal heating
,that might hit closer to home although I have so far seen nothing in the MSM about that!

Juan Slayton
March 3, 2016 6:01 pm

As a courtesy….
Pretty good indicator of how seriously they take the accusations.
: > )

March 3, 2016 6:21 pm

Since Exxon/Mobile is a publicly-traded company, how are their officers supposed to generate accurate quarterly/annual reports and stay compliant with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002? All it takes is one falsehood and that officer could get a 20-yr jail sentence and up to $25 million in fines. Since there’s no verifiable facts regarding this “global warming” meme, what officer would dare include that in any official report?
None, I dare say. And yet that is what the DOJ wants them to do? It’s sheer lunacy!

Reply to  RockyRoad
March 3, 2016 6:36 pm

The law regarding publicly traded companies is supposed to protect the shareholder who has no direct access to internal information (like: sorry, but there isn’t really any economically recoverable uranium in that “uranium mine”; still, it’s a nice hole in the ground).
The people in a company know a lot more than the public about the business of the company.
Exxon isn’t in the “carbon” business. Exxon doesn’t trade “carbon” or CO2 or “black carbon”.
Exxon isn’t in the climate business. Exxon doesn’t trade climate models.
Why would anyone expect Exxon to inform shareholder about the theories about the “dangerous” CO2? The shareholders have a duty to inform themselves about long term risks (climate risks, IPCC–induced risks, etc.). Exxon executives have no privileged access to God.
But the job of climate scientist is to inform about the uncertainties and risks of excess of confidence of the science. Predictors (or projectors?) of past climate had a duty to inform the citizens about “the decline”.
Why aren’t publicly owned (at least paid for) projects expected to follow at least the same standards as privately owned companies?

Ernest Bush
Reply to  simple-touriste
March 4, 2016 5:22 am

They usually are. A government employee who just wants to dig a hole on a government reservation 9at least in the DOD) has to get permissions from half the rest of the government first. If you are wanting to put something in that hole like a post plan on doing the actual digging months later. The bigger the project the more time it takes before you can start, sometimes years. It starts with the archeologist you have on staff and goes downhill from there.

Janice Moore
Reply to  RockyRoad
March 3, 2016 6:47 pm

Good point, Rocky Road (LOVE that flavor!)!
Also, aside from the honesty in corporate documents issue, a corporation is a “person” in the eyes of the law and, thus, has First Amendment freedom of expression rights.
Even the fairly restrictive “Truth in Advertising Act” is mainly aimed at blatant falsehoods (and at protecting children — e.g., gotta show those little hands clutching that running-to-the-rescue G.I. Joe doll who does not walk on his own…. sorta makes you wonder about the parents who are the ones buying the products aimed at kids…. pretty weak patsies for kid-extortion, I guess, gotta help ’em out… lol).
…. just a little caveat to beware what follows….
A Little Rant by Janice
Seriously, if one had the money, one could hire an attorney to file a lawsuit against many, many, advertisers (choose one) who claim that using their product is “earth friendly.” I’d choose a children’s toy or food (lower standard of proof of deceit). One could easily show that there is NO evidence, only conjecture, that reducing human CO2 emissions (assuming their product actually had a net CO2 reduction which is HIGHLY unlikely in itself) does anything that could rationally be called, “earth friendly.” CO2 is GOOD for “the planet.” Well, rich people have better things to do with their money, no doubt! Wouldn’t that be GREAT though? Just win one big one and it would have a WONDERFULLY CHILLING EFFECT on human CO2 (i.e. AGW) hot air.

March 3, 2016 6:34 pm

Thanks Exxon for all you do. Dinner tonight was a beautiful Australian grain and grass fed steak, (gasp go the greens), cauliflower from California, mushrooms from BC Canada and potatoes from Prince Edward island. I am sure the horses are very tired delivering all of that and the amount of Ice it must have used! ( and we are still trying to figure out how the heck those horses got New Zealand lamb to us the other day, could it have been on the same Sailing ship as the Australian Beef ?, boy wonders never cease).

Janice Moore
Reply to  asybot
March 3, 2016 6:54 pm

Hi, Asybot,
I see you’ve gone undercover again. Hope all is well. Hope the TV aggravation is behind you, now (I prayed!). Say, just curious, Australia is waaaaaaay farther away than your local beef and ours, just across the border… . I’m sure Australian beef is EXCELLENT, however, it would never cross my mind to buy meat from so far away. So, why?
Thanks for answering if you have time.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2016 8:52 pm

We have Australian bred Wagyu beef. In restaurants, it sells for about AU$250 for a 250g steak, not a steak meal, just the steak in the meal. I am too scared to stump up that much bangers and mash for a steak though.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2016 9:12 pm

I agree, Patrick. I really love steak (and prime rib). And I so rarely (actually, “medium” for me, lol) get to enjoy a fine piece of beef that I would be REALLY BUMMED if that one turned out to be tough or not great flavor (or poorly prepared…. ). I’ve had that happen more than once — FINALLY get to go out for a rib eye or a New York steak and….. oh, man… B-U-M-M-E-D. Well, I’ll keep it in mind. Someday, if I have some cash to spare, I’ll try that Wagyu stuff. Thanks for answering me!

Tom Judd
March 3, 2016 7:05 pm

Federal Bureau of Indoctrination

March 3, 2016 7:20 pm

I suspect the DOJ is getting rid of the problem. They hand it to the FBI, the FBI decide it’s not worth prosecuting and the DOJ can wash their hands of it, telling those who push for criminal proceedings that it’s been looked into and there’s nothing more they can do. They must be sick of the green whingers – I know I am.

old construction worker
March 4, 2016 3:27 am

Obama is using the FBI as a political weapon. That was part of the reason Nixon got impeached.

Mumbles McGuirck
March 4, 2016 5:17 am

So Peter Gleick commits wire fraud and the FBI couldn’t be bothered, but Exxon insufficiently caves in to Climate Alarmism and they have to investigate. If only Gleick had hacked Hillary’s server…

March 4, 2016 6:03 am

It’s like something right out of the tyranny of Stalin’s Soviet union. Such a blatant case out abuse of power.

March 4, 2016 7:32 am

Just as soon as the FBI provides a referral of indictment of Hillary Clinton for her email server and other federal felony charges for misuse of classified material, then the FBI can simply rejects it.

Walter Sobchak
March 4, 2016 4:17 pm

The FBI can not issue a criminal complaint nor can it present evidence to a grand jury that could issue an indictment. They can investigate and give their findings to DOJ which can do those things. Of course they can do what any good bureaucrat can do which is slow walk and foot drag. DOJ is most likely, doing the bureaucratic shuffle off to Buffalo.

March 4, 2016 6:37 pm

I suspect it’s just a warning in general . . to play along or face persecution.

March 4, 2016 9:39 pm

Unless the MoC have some actionable charge (fraud, slander) in their “request”, this looks a lot like “we don’t like what they’re saying, so prosecute them”. First Amendment violation territory. And a violation of the Congressional Oath of Office, unless that’s been gutted while no one was looking. Definitely a high crime or misdemeanor.
Also, a cry-bully act on the MoC part. Find out the names and shame them. Repeatedly and loudly.

March 5, 2016 4:24 am

Exxon really needs to turn the table on these climate criminals/trial lawyers. Exxon needs to fund an Open Source Temperature Reconstruction and Climate Model that will refute the Hockeystick and provide a greater R^2 than the IPCC models. The Climate Alarmists face no consequences for their actions. Forcing the climate science field to refute an Open Source, transparent temperature reconstruction and accurate climate model would win the case for them. The IPCC Models and Hockeystick are not reproducible if good science is demanded.

March 5, 2016 5:08 am

BTW, I would imagine that Donald Trump has these climate “scientists” sacred to death. I can see him using the line “NASA now spends more money on climate science than they do operating the Space Shuttle.” GE’s CEO just slammed the Green Regulations in their annual report. This is from Obama’s Jobs Czar.

GE’s Immelt: ‘Most gov’t policy is anti-growth’ Immelt took the opportunity in his annual letter to stress that the current business cycle is the “worst” he has ever seen due to the difficult relationship between business and government.
“Technology, productivity and globalization have been the driving forces during my business career. In business, if you don’t lead these changes, you get fired; in politics if you don’t fight them, you can’t get elected. As a result, most government policy is anti-growth,” noted Immelt in the annual report.
The Green Gravy Train will end if Trump gets elected, and all the fraudsters know that. We have spent a fortune on this green nonsense and it has gotten us nothing but higher energy costs.

March 5, 2016 6:11 am

Jump on the George Soros coal train

This is all starting to look like one huge market manipulation. Anti-trust violations get triple damages. The SEC should look into George and these market manipulators.

March 5, 2016 6:18 am

If we put conspiracy theories aside, especially when it relates to Soros and his quite outspoken and negative stance on coal, then we are left with the idea that two very smart players, a.k.a. “smart money,” know something. If anything, the Soros purchase especially lit the very dry tinder of these stocks for a monstrous, albeit short-lived rally. Arch moved from the $2 level to $10 in less than two weeks’ time before giving back most of it.
A trump victory will send these stocks through the roof. Now there is a financial incentive for all these looters to stop promoting this climate nonsense. They can buy up the coal and energy stocks cheep, buy them now, stop the opposition, and gain ownership of them as they rally. That way, Exxon will be paying the Environmental groups. It will be interesting to see what Al Gore does. Trump will destroy the green industries, and Al runs a green hedge fund.

March 5, 2016 6:25 am

“George Soros spent millions of dollars and multiple years helping to driving down price of coal,” H. Sterling Burnett, research fellow and managing editor, at the Heartland Institute, told
“If he buys enough stock to have controlling interests in these coal businesses, closes them down and leaves the coal in the ground, we might accept that he is a true believer, that his investment was all about stopping climate change and saving the environment,” he said.
“But my suspicion is that he helped to drive stocks down, bought as many shares as he can, and, when stocks rebound, he can sell his shares and make a huge profit.”

Where is the SEC when we need them?

March 5, 2016 3:47 pm

I am a long time reader of WUWT. I am very grateful for this blog and have learned much from it. I am unfit to comment on the many very scientific issues discussed here but I am very excited that a topic has been brought up in the comment section to which I have some expertise. Australian Wagyu beef is excellent. Australian Waygu is graded on a scale of 1 to 12. American USDA prime would score between a 4 or 5 on this scale. So you can imagine the quality of these steaks.

March 6, 2016 12:21 am

So many climate criminals….. If we would look back in our recent history we’ll discover so many people whose decisions had a huge impact over climate:

March 6, 2016 8:10 am

Not a good idea in an election year where the FBI refuses to go after Ms “I am exempt from every law” Clinton. If they think past actions made them look bad, this could be the boulder falling on whatever is left of their credibility. A wise lawyer could make mincemeat of this.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights