Here we go again: Massachusetts AG Demands Docs From More Conservative Skeptic Groups #RICO20

From Mike Bastasch at the Daily Caller:

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey – photo from her website

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is now the latest state prosecutor to start investigating conservative groups with supposed ties to ExxonMobil, after she issued a subpoena for 40 years of internal company documents and communications with a handful of think tanks.

Healey’s office subpoenaed Exxon as part of a multi-state effort among liberal attorneys general to investigate Exxon for allegedly trying to cover up global warming science. Healey charges that the oil giant lied to shareholders and consumers about the risks of global warming in its communications and shareholder filings, according to a copy of the subpoena obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Healey demands decades worth or records from prominent conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation and activist group Americans for Prosperity, and also from smaller, lesser known state-based right-leaning groups, such as Boston’s Beacon Hill Institute and the Acton Institute.

But there’s a huge problem with Healey’s subpoena that shows just how broad this investigation has become: At least two of the groups the subpoena demands records from have not received any money from Exxon.

Beacon Hill and Americans for Prosperity have not gotten any Exxon funding, but are still being targeted

Healey isn’t the first AG to target conservative groups that disagree with most Democratic politicians on global warming policy. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker subpoenaed Exxon for records regarding dozens of conservative think tanks, policy experts and scientists in March.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched an investigation into Exxon’s global warming stance in November, based on reporting by liberal journalists at InsideClimate News and Columbia University that Exxon had been covering up climate science for decades while funding right-wing activist groups.

Schneiderman hosted a conference in March with other AGs, including Healey and Walker, where it was announced that more prosecutors would probe Exxon and fight back against Republican attacks on federal environmental regulations.

Former Vice President Al Gore attended the event, as did a group of environmental activists — though Schneiderman’s office tried to cover up eco-activists’ involvement. At the event, Schneiderman even suggested global warming skeptics should be put in jail.

“Financial damages alone may be insufficient,” Schneiderman said. “The First Amendment does not give you the right to commit fraud.”

But Exxon hasn’t taken these subpoenas lying down. The oil company has filed a complaint against Walker in Texas court, and two Republican attorneys general have even intervened in the case to squash Walker’s demands.

Exxon has also filed a complaint against Healey, alleging her investigation is nothing more than a predetermined political stunt.

Exxon’s complaint even notes how Maura basically announced the results of her investigation before she even sent her subpoena to the company.

“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,” Healey charged at the March event hosted by Schneiderman.

“Remarkably, she also announced, in advance, the findings of her investigation weeks before she even issued the [civil investigative demand],” Exxon’s lawyers wrote in their complaint, a copy of which was obtained by TheDCNF.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 15, 2016 10:23 am

Looks like every faithful party hack has to do their bit to help Shrillery.

Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 15, 2016 11:39 am

From the AG office that gave the world the “Fell’s Acres” rot.

george e. smith
Reply to  ShrNfr
June 15, 2016 4:32 pm

Do they still burn witches at the stake in Massachusetts ??
Seems like an educationally very backward and ignorant State if you ask me.
This Maura Healey seems determined to set America back even more than Sen. Ted Kennedy’s Family Unification Immigration Law disaster has. Ted Kennedy’s legacy will be engraved on America’s gravestone.

Reply to  ShrNfr
June 15, 2016 5:49 pm

Seems like an educationally very backward and ignorant State if you ask me.

Yep, but not as backward and ignorant as any other state by educational attainment.
I think that most people would think that investigating political lobby groups for fraud is at least less backward than investigating scientists for fraud. They have a much more obvious and plausible motivation.

Reply to  ShrNfr
June 15, 2016 10:36 pm

Seth, if what they learn in Massachusetts isn’t true, of what value is it?

Ray Boorman
Reply to  ShrNfr
June 15, 2016 11:26 pm

Seth, you have got to be kidding. There are more & more medical researchers being revealed as frauds every year – and the reason is that there is a lot of money to be made from medical advances, even fraudulent ones. It would be a very naive person who refused to believe that all the taxpayers money being thrown at “climate change” research is not an enticement to commit fraud for the many 3rd rate academics in the field.

Reply to  ShrNfr
June 16, 2016 7:27 am

I love the way trolls actually believe that having an advanced degree proves that you are educated.

Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 15, 2016 12:19 pm

it can’t be!
Such a nice lady!
With such a beautiful smile!

Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 15, 2016 12:29 pm

We should demand documents from these AG gangsters about their collusion with far-left think-tanks to reveal racketeering activities.

Curious George
Reply to  pyeatte
June 15, 2016 8:16 pm

Is an Attorney General a public servant, or is she above the law? Transparency, please.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  pyeatte
June 15, 2016 10:43 pm

The unelected bureaucrats in United Nations has even professionalized their collusion with so called Non Governmental Organizations.
From Principles governing IPCC work
“9. Experts from WMO and UN Member countries or international, intergovernmental or non- governmental organisations may be invited in their own right to contribute to the work of the IPCC Working Groups and Task Forces. Governments should be informed in advance of invitations extended to experts from their countries and they may nominate additional experts.”
It´s time to critically challenge our preconceptions about United Nations. In my view the unelected bureaucrats in United Nations seems to be at the epi-center, spreading the method of politicized science.

Stephen Greene
Reply to  pyeatte
June 16, 2016 7:21 pm

It is about time. How about the entire Obama Administration.

Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 15, 2016 1:06 pm

I like it! I have to change the channel everytime she comes on. That voice is like fingernails on a blackboard.

Reply to  TA
June 16, 2016 7:23 am

fingernail on a chalkboard. I’ve used that exact same analogy. Gee if I’m going to hate the message at least could it come from a good looking lady with a silky voice.

June 15, 2016 10:26 am

..Isn’t it funny that progressive “liberals” don’t believe in liberty, freedom or the constitution !!

Reply to  Marcus
June 15, 2016 11:11 am

The only freedom most leftists acknowledge, is their freedom force others to do what ever the leftist wants them to do.

Reply to  Marcus
June 15, 2016 12:12 pm

Just what these types believe – or, better, what “belief” means in this case – is an interesting psychological question.

Reply to  Marcus
June 15, 2016 12:21 pm

A leftists believes that they should have the “freedom” to do whatever they want. Which is why they support socialism, because it promotes this type of “freedom”.
As for others, your only freedom is to support their freedom.

Reply to  Marcus
June 15, 2016 3:24 pm

They can’t help it because their logic IQ’s are less than zero….comment image

george e. smith
Reply to  Marcus
June 15, 2016 8:54 pm

Well right now, I am up in the vicinity of Portland Oregon, visiting in-laws. I just got through reading some publication of that Friends of the Earth domestic terrorist organization.
Yes it was addressed to one of my in laws, who recently emigrated to here from SoCal, no doubt after assisting that State in its self immolation.
I think I’m the black sheep of the family. You can’t even imagine what it is like being surrounded by an entire family that have all gone pear shaped in some way or another.
Yet in some ways, they are mostly nice and some quite clever people.
So the thought of living in Camelot; well I’d rather live in a camel lot; fleas and all !

Quinn the Eskimo
June 15, 2016 10:29 am

She ought to bring her case in Salem, MA to perfect the analogy to the Witch Trials.

Reply to  Quinn the Eskimo
June 16, 2016 6:00 am

I penned this 2 weeks ago:
Welcome to the dark ages II.

Reply to  john
June 16, 2016 6:22 am

Second drug lab scandal engulfs state criminal justice system
For the second time in recent years, prosecutors across Massachusetts are confronting the possibility that thousands of drug investigations may have been built on flawed scientific ground — raising the specter of convictions being thrown out.
That potential emerged amid disclosures that a former chemist at a Department of Public Health lab in Amherst was regularly high on the job and dipped into the lab’s stash of drugs for her own use. Those revelations have cast doubt upon tests performed at the now-shuttered lab.

Reply to  john
June 16, 2016 7:29 am

Who watches the watchers?

June 15, 2016 10:32 am

Those A.G.s should bear in mind why Justice carries a 2 edged sword.
It cuts both ways.
Exxon should investigate and prosecute them for their corrupt links to the greens.

Reply to  Felflames
June 15, 2016 11:26 am

And don’t lose sight of it, at least three of the people seen in the January “let’s-nail-Exxon-this-year” leaked email agenda have associations with the 20-year smear of skeptic climate scientists: “‘The Usual Suspects’ in the Persecution of Global Warming Skeptics” . One of those guys is a person I covered right here at WUWT: “Greenpeace: The roots of Climate Smear”

Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
June 15, 2016 12:33 pm

Read your first link and the comments. Was that just One troll or several? One doesn’t often see closed minds on AmericanThinker.

Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
June 15, 2016 6:43 pm

@ClimateOtter: I’m guessing it was either one or a pair of quite persistent trolls, who routinely change their login identities to get past the screeners. Myself, I wouldn’t delete troll comments there since the material they spew out is consistently lame and exposes such trolls to be the non-critical thinkers they are. I jousted with one there, pointing out how he/she failed to dispute a word I said. I have yet to encounter one who can give it a real college try, they are pretty much all ad hominem.

george e. smith
Reply to  Felflames
June 15, 2016 4:36 pm

As “old” fighter pilots caution: ” Tracers work equally well in both directions ! ”

Reply to  george e. smith
June 16, 2016 7:33 am

I read a report that apparently tracers have different aerodynamic characteristics than do normal rounds.
As a result, if your tracers are hitting the target, all the other rounds are missing it.
Another study showed that pilots who didn’t use tracers had better kill records than those that did. (This could also be due to the pilots who didn’t user tracers having more experience.)

Reply to  george e. smith
June 17, 2016 7:25 am

Pappy Boyington’s XO of VMF 214 did tests on firing a .50 cal into junked aircraft and figured out that eliminating the tracer rounds from their load and replacing them with armor piercing incendiary rounds was most effective and it resulted in the squadrons kill ratio jumping nearly 50%.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  Felflames
June 15, 2016 9:00 pm

This is likely a shell game of misdirection (i.e. keep your eye on the pea).
One has to wonder what actual crimes are being committed by morally corrupt liberals trying to plunder as much capital from state and federal treasuries as possible while this misdirection by liberal inquisitioners is going on.

June 15, 2016 10:39 am

I am Spartacus.

Reply to  Resourceguy
June 15, 2016 1:07 pm

Nice to meet you!!!

David Smith
Reply to  Resourceguy
June 15, 2016 1:42 pm

No! I am Spartacus!

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  David Smith
June 15, 2016 2:11 pm

Me too!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  David Smith
June 15, 2016 6:22 pm

I’m Brian and so is my wife!

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  David Smith
June 15, 2016 9:03 pm

There are some who call me … … Tim.

Reply to  Resourceguy
June 16, 2016 5:55 am

I as well!

Coach Springer
Reply to  Resourceguy
June 16, 2016 6:21 am

I am Spartacus. Spartacus is FOIA.
And speaking of “oppressed people fighting for their freedom against a slave-owning oligarchy” (h/t Wikipedia) the intrepid Attorneys General are Rome.

Coach Springer
Reply to  Coach Springer
June 16, 2016 6:30 am

Better yet. I am Epstein. (In reference to his twitter response to Rome’s advance on him.)

Tom Halla
June 15, 2016 10:45 am

It looks very much like the greens are getting desperate.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 15, 2016 10:53 am

Call it desperate if you want, but it would be prudent to keep tabs on when or if they commandeer the railroads to begin shipping the political science skeptics out to special relocation camps.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Resourceguy
June 15, 2016 11:00 am

If they’re going to burn the bodies with solar energy I think we’ll be OK. I know, a joke in poor taste!

Reply to  Resourceguy
June 15, 2016 12:09 pm

John … maybe, but I can almost visualize the conservation about the how to do it.
“Yes, the most efficient methods may be as history dictates, but we need to set a good example. Our legacy will be based not only on how we cleaned up the unwanted, unneeded, and troublesome, but on how we did it … I strongly encourage solar powered incinerators”

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 15, 2016 10:57 am

I disagree. They’re not getting desperate, they’ve won. They’ve achieved critical mass and now they’re going after everything that once made modern life comfortable, convenient, and safe.

Reply to  Psion
June 15, 2016 11:43 am

I would have to agree. There is nothing to suggest a real risk or barrier to this behavior at this point. Certainly the barriers of common sense, fact checking, science process, and sanity have been breached. That only leaves remorse for being left on the sidelines of the Climate Cultural Revolution. It’s not like Millennials are going to suddenly stand up and say “wait a minute” on any of this. Indoctrination brings with it a level of certainty about saying or doing dumb things for those stepping out in the limelight.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Psion
June 15, 2016 12:08 pm

Yes. Critical body count mass is all that is needed to send the populous over the cliff. Which is why we should be skeptical of ALL critical mass uprisings. Thought is at its best when it is generated independent of outside influence.

Reply to  Psion
June 15, 2016 6:55 pm

Remember when you were a child and they told you:
– you wouldn’t jump off a cliff because others do (debatable)
– don’t take drugs because of peer pressure
– don’t smoke because it’s “cool”
Now, what do most adults do?
They follow the latest trends, even when it involves injections of potentially dangerous products!
When discussing public policies, what is the argument you hear most often? The one I hear is “most countries do this or that”!
Or most adults really believe that following the critical mass of people is the best thing to do most of the time. They just lie to their children.

Reply to  Psion
June 16, 2016 5:06 am

They want us to be Venezuela. (riots over food there)

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 15, 2016 10:57 am

It does indeed! Do they see the wheels falling off their cart (pretty loaded down with b.s.)? Or are they afraid that Trump will win? Or maybe just looking to extort Exxon to fund their “green” project and coincidentally their political careers? I understand Hillary met with Exxon in late 2015. Stinks of a shakedown to me.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Vancouver
Reply to  John Harmsworth
June 15, 2016 2:39 pm

They met with her to discuss exxon cutting off funding to the Clinton Foundation. Looks to me as if they were paying for something, and that something is no longer ‘working’.
Look similarly for companies who cut off funds for Greenpeace. There will be consequences for these departures.

Terry Harnden
June 15, 2016 10:49 am

why don’t we send them the whole wattsupwiththat database and the link that lets you do a keyword searck of the whole database ?

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Terry Harnden
June 15, 2016 11:45 am

You beat me to it, Terry. Using the same tactics as warmists in court, Exxon, et al, should just do a paper dump of their data files and send a U-Haul (size: Large – & – COD) to the AG.

June 15, 2016 10:56 am

Fight fire with fire. Submit FOIA requests for all of Healey’s emails with any and all environmental groups, NGO’s and other Democrat AGs.

June 15, 2016 11:05 am

That reminds me I have to get my think tank pumped out.

June 15, 2016 11:06 am

The fossil fuel industry needs to get their act together and start cooperating with each other on this. Until now, oil and gas (mostly Gas) has profited handsomely at the expense of coal, so they’ve stayed mostly on the sidelines of the debate. Now that Exxon is in their sites, maybe they’ll put the funding on the table to expose CAGW for what it is. They don’t even have to do any research. All the ammunition they need is in the IPCC reports themselves. All big fossil has to do is step up with the cash to ensure some front page coverage. If they don’t unite, we may be witness to another sad chapter in the annals of history.
First the came for the coal companies, and because I was not a coal company, I said nothing.
Then they came for the oil companies…

Owen in GA
Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 15, 2016 4:21 pm

The coal company shutdowns was a feature of Oil industry strategy. They were influencing government policy to make sure that competitor was out of the way. Now the monster is out of control and has them firmly in its sights. Other than the death of the constitution aspects of the case, the oil companies are reaping what they sowed.

Reply to  Owen in GA
June 15, 2016 5:23 pm

Has more to do with “We Disrupted the Energy System” than with natural gas.

Reply to  Owen in GA
June 16, 2016 7:32 am

Exxon Mobil (and other oil majors) are part of the problem (of this ‘debate’ with the CO2 catastrophists lasting much longer than it should have). Many CO2 catastrophist claim that fossil fuel burning has put mankind on a genocidal course, that it will make the planet unlivable for humans, yada, yada. The management of Exxon Mobil would have be complete idiots not to be concerned about how such dire predictions would impact their business – ESPECIALLY since the deal with the procurement of assets (oil fields) that can require decades to deplete.
It’s time for Exxon Mobil to get off the fence. I have advocated for shareholder lawsuits against Exxon Mobil management, for failure to deal with the ongoing CO2 regulatory threat. A discovery process should reveal what Exxon Mobil (both management, as well as chief scientists) knew about climate science, and when they knew it.
How can ANYBODY be against ferreting out these non-trivial facts????
I don’t know about the legality of an attorney general forcing this information out of Exxon Mobil, but at least in terms of the “ends” – i.e., disclosure – I’m all for it, even if it should be the case that the means is legally dubious. I mean, Exxon Mobil has HUGE resources, it’s not like a lawsuit is going to bankrupt them.
The NY AG has said: “Financial damages alone may be insufficient,” “The First Amendment does not give you the right to commit fraud.”
Let’s hope the threat of criminal liability gets Exxon Mobil management off the fence. They need to start making the case, AT LEAST in the public sphere, that CO2 catastrophism is – so far – a failed hypothesis, and that the climate models, in particular, have been proven so far off that they are no basis to run either a business, country, or world civilization.

June 15, 2016 11:10 am

Beyond the absurdity of the request in the first place.
40 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!

David Smith
Reply to  MarkW
June 15, 2016 1:45 pm

Exactly what I was going to say, but I was going to use more exclamation marks

george e. smith
Reply to  MarkW
June 15, 2016 4:41 pm

Global warming liturgy doesn’t even go back for 40 years. How could Exxon, have been messing with global warming skullduggery as long ago as 40 years ??

David A
Reply to  george e. smith
June 16, 2016 4:04 am

Not certain how Exxon knew something the CIA did not know. In 1978 the CIA knew global cooling was the most dangerous thing we ever faced.

Reply to  MarkW
June 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Being used to quash an on-going Congressional inquiry?
Look who’s records a Congressional inquiry wants to obtain. As reported in the media, these groups have refused to supply records.

Reply to  MarkW
June 16, 2016 6:50 am

It actually begs a question why would a company hold memos etc for 40 years anyhow. In most countries the company law requirements are 5-7 years. If I was an oil company I think I might use the tactic of the AGW crowd and start shredding old documents that aren’t legally required.

Reply to  LdB
June 16, 2016 7:36 am

Most companies get rid of old documents because storage costs too much.
Then there is that legal liability thing. You can’t be forced to present documents that no longer exist.

June 15, 2016 11:11 am

Instead of chasing down Exxon, Ms Healy’s time would be much better spent looking at the state of wind power in Masschusetts. Several turbines vie for the work siting, worst human impact, or worst financially performing systems anywhere.
A new port that was supposed to be the main area for handling off shore wind projects doesn’t have its connection to a rail line started and is behind a gate that is too small to handle the typical size IWT construction barges.

Mark from the Midwest
June 15, 2016 11:17 am

“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,”
Healy should probably review the ABA materials on the IMPARTIALITY OF JUDGES and PROSECUTORS, she might find that here statement, alone, would require her to step aside from any role in any investigation involving any party named in the filings.

June 15, 2016 11:32 am

I don’t know how this is going to play out. But there have been a couple of big climate change wins, recently(by teens, surprisingly) in both Washington State and Massachusetts:

David in Michigan
Reply to  JohnMacdonell
June 15, 2016 4:46 pm

I agree that these rulings represent “climate change wins”. However, the judicial ruling is based on failure to meet the requirements of duly passed legislative acts/laws. It’s the legislature that crafted the laws. They probably knew the goals were unrealistic when passed but hey, politics demanded action. There is rarely a day that goes by where I don’t read about such craziness.

June 15, 2016 11:42 am

I’m not sure if this would fly…. but. If I was Exxon I’d stop selling any gas or oil products to the states attacking it. And then watch as the people of the state get rid of their AG’s.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  BBould
June 15, 2016 12:08 pm

All they would need to do is have a few missed deliveries to stations in high traffic areas, and say that it’s part of their forward looking plan to discontinue business within the state. Most gas stations have a modest supply of product on hand, and depend on trucking schedules that are pretty rigid. If one station in an area closes down the other stations have difficulty making up the slack. We had a situation where one 24 pump station found water in its tanks on a Saturday noon, during a summer holiday weekend, and by late Sunday, the time when people had to be fueling up for the drive home, we were already having spot outages at other stations in the area.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 15, 2016 12:20 pm

we were already having spot outages at other stations in the area
When I first skimmed that line I read “spot outrages“. I do think that’s what we need now, however, and not from the usual suspects.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 15, 2016 2:29 pm

The problem with this approach is that the stations are usually owner operators not company owned. The small businessman that managed to scratch up the capital to buy a station or more in an area and signed a contract with a distributor to carry their brand of fuel is not going to be able to weather a cutoff of the supply chain.
I do agree with the sentiment though, that would hit the pols where it hurts more than a few lawyers that are mainly ignored by the press, giving counter arguments and questions of the intent of those that are on the bully-pulpit.

Reply to  BBould
June 15, 2016 5:39 pm

Look at the primary election results for the U.S. Senate seat in California.
Californians don’t care what their top vote candidate did by being involved in this AG affair.

Reply to  Barbara
June 15, 2016 6:46 pm

Massachusetts Congressional Delegation – 11 members
2 Senators, Democrats
9 Representatives, Democrats
Is there a safer U.S. state to do this?
AGs involved: 17 Democrats and 1 Republican.

Reply to  Barbara
June 15, 2016 7:56 pm

Wikipedia: Maura Healey
Massachusetts’ Attorney General
Democrat, elected 2014.

Reply to  BBould
June 16, 2016 1:25 am

I totally agree with this because we are all culpable, if Exxon is guilty then we are all guilty as consumers of their products. This would become perfectly clear, to even the dullest of intellects, if supply was cut off! And I’d start with the Government contracts, stopping distribution immediately. And I would make a point of stating in the press release that Exxon is cutting supply as an expression of good faith in solidarity that those who are concerned that their consumption of Exxon products has become unethical for them.

Eric H
June 15, 2016 11:43 am

I read through a few of these and it looks like Exxon was pretty close on the science and spot on concerning the uncertainty of catastrophic climate change. These papers were also publically available. Here is the link:
What gives government the power to demand internal documents from a private corporation that is not publically funded? Doesn’t there have to be evidence of a crime first?

Reply to  Eric H
June 15, 2016 12:26 pm

That used to be how the law worked.

Reply to  Eric H
June 15, 2016 7:02 pm

The power exists to determine whether a law has been broken. Given the state of the inspection, the objections that she clearly has determined the outcome before it has began is legitimate.

June 15, 2016 11:46 am

Any day now the EU World Court is going to jump in the ring.

June 15, 2016 11:50 am

The polite version of the reply she deserves is “Nutz”.
The brilliant cinematic reply she deserves is

Roger Bournival
June 15, 2016 11:53 am

Just when I thought Martha Coakley was the worst Mass. AG in recent history…

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Roger Bournival
June 15, 2016 12:19 pm

I do not understand Massachusetts. They elected Ted Kennedy over and over again even after Chappaquiddick; after the waitress sandwich, after a lifetime of lies. Coakley was determined to keep innocent people in jail, Warren and the tales she tells. Barney Frank wanting to continue to roll the dice on housing, and on and on it goes. Lead in the water?

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
June 15, 2016 12:36 pm

There may well be lead, but at least there aren’t any wind turbines.

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
June 15, 2016 2:09 pm

There are several wind turbines. And more in HN and ME where Mass can buy power and RECs while they try to build more IWTs.

June 15, 2016 11:53 am

I think it is probably a good thing that these AG’s are piling on. It appears to be politically motivated and nothing to do with science. But it would be wonderful if it resulted in a common front by the fossil fuel companies and going to court to determine just where the “science” lies. It would take years and years and the most likely outcome for an impartial judge (should one exist on the planet) would be that we JUST DON”T KNOW. Who has identified the supposed warming JUST from fossil fuels. Never mind land use, agriculture, deforestation, urban development, heat from energy production including solar and wind (we all know that heat is generated from work, right?) How about composting, water treatment, sewage treatment, transportation, electrical transmission, regenerative braking, charging batteries … ? Everything we do produces heat and impacts. What portion of that is from oil and gas and how does it compare to the energy recieved from the sun. Probably a pittance. How about comparing human heat production to that of termites?
Trouble is, finding an impartial judge might be a Diogenes type effort.
The First Act of the the Play has begun. I am looking forward to Act II.
Reminds me of a bunch of kids vying for attention so there is a bunch of “me too” acts going on. Which is probably what this is all about. A group of AG’s pandering to what they think their re-election base is. Politics :-p

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
June 15, 2016 12:58 pm

AG’s better be careful because the science cannot stand the scrutiny it would be subject to if their ever is a suit. It is the true believers that have lied and manipulated the data and avoided debate. I have a feeling Exxon and the sceptical scientist would love to have a real shot at the science and the true believer scientist.

Reply to  W. Snider
June 15, 2016 2:00 pm

The problem is that courts do not judge science.
In the best case, we have an issue of competing experts.
In the worst case, the court recognizes the warmistas expert but refuses to recognize the skeptics expert.
Then once again, they win because they silenced the opposition.

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
June 15, 2016 7:04 pm

I’ve already gotten word from higher ups. Exxon’s on their own, at least from my bosses. The general view downtown is that Exxon is hanging themselves with their stance and we should stay as far away as possible. If Exxon wins, the industry wins. If Exxon falls, they fall alone.
Sorry, y’all. I tried.

Kevin Kilty
June 15, 2016 12:10 pm

Are these people suggesting that owning Exxon-Mobil stock has been injurious to investors? Our leadership has succumbed to magical thinking…

george e. smith
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
June 15, 2016 4:51 pm

Well she’s implying that some people may have passed up on buying Exxon-Mobil Stock, based on their complete misunderstanding of Exxon’s research on climate, and lost the opportunity to turn a thousand dollar investment into a million bucks overnight.
How was Exxon supposed to warn their investors or their potential investors that their stock might become worthless, due to a scam suit by the Massachusetts AG.

June 15, 2016 12:20 pm

For me, one of the most unnerving things about people like this is that they all have that I-have-my-act-together smile.

Reply to  rw
June 15, 2016 4:49 pm

That smile struck me too, rw . . though I might put it~ one of the most unnerving things about people like this is that they all have that I-have-my-smile-together-act ..
There is sort of dedicated muscle appearance to it . . as though smiling was not “natural” to that person, which would result in a more evenly distributed facial musculature, since we (natural smilers) don’t smile in the same way each time. This one (much like Mr. Obama), seems to have a very limited set of well developed smile muscles, to me. Reminds me of ‘Predator’ . .

June 15, 2016 12:27 pm

Healey has the same problems as USVI AG Walker. Securities fraud except under NY Martin Act requires scienter, reliance, and harm. Scienter means Exxon ‘knew’ CAGW was true and chose to withhold the information. That will be impossible to prove, as there is no ‘knowable C’, the A is a because of natural variation, and there has been (except for 2015 El Nino) no GW this century. And Exxon shareholders did not rely on science. And there has been no harm; Exxon has been an excellent investment. The subpoenaed entities should sue the entire AG 19 and Al Gore under 42USC1983 and/or 1985, conspiracy to deprive civil rights (first amendment). Got to nip this in the bud. Except for Schneiderman and NY Martin Act, Exxon should do the same.
[“scienter” ???? .mod]

Reply to  ristvan
June 15, 2016 1:36 pm

Mod: Legal term from latin, emerged in English common law centuries ago. Means defendant knowingly deceived. ‘Knowingly’ is scienter. Is written into all state plus federal securities statutes EXCEPT NY’s Martin Act. Healey would be relying on the Massachusetts state law version. She does not have authority under federal securities laws or Rico. Walker USVI relied on the USVI equivalent of Rico, and has already failed with CEI and Exxon.

Curious George
Reply to  ristvan
June 15, 2016 8:25 pm

Impossible to prove? Never underestimate the power of persuasion. Soviet interrogators could make even centuries-old bones to confess (it was presented as a joke, but chilling anyway). We are not there yet, but moving fast.

June 15, 2016 12:37 pm

How about a class action suit against all these AGs alleging an attempt to destroy the value of XOM shares. And an attempt to violate the First Amendment rights of the company.

June 15, 2016 1:10 pm

I’ve been kicking around the idea of starting a class-action against all of the states that have committed a knowing act of defamation against Exxon which may have negatively affected my 401k.

June 15, 2016 1:18 pm

So in these dangerous times of Islamic extremism from the religion of “hate” what do we have in the news today? lets go after “conservative” “skeptics” and “deniers” who would dare challenge the religion of bull shit… AGW… but wait we cant call Jihadist “radical islam” but they can label political enemies by any name they want…. Chutzpah!

June 15, 2016 1:22 pm

““Financial damages alone may be insufficient,” Schneiderman said. “The First Amendment does not give you the right to commit fraud.”
In order to prove fraud, you have to prove the defendant lied about something.
Exxon scientists speculating about the Earth’s climate, is not the same as telling a lie about the climate.
The AG’s are operating on a false [premis]: that CAGW is real, and [that they] are pretending that Exxon was covering this up, when, in fact, one cannot fraudulently hide something that doesn’t exist.
[Only one false premis? .mod]

Reply to  TA
June 15, 2016 1:54 pm

Correct. The only ‘proof’ of CAGW is in models that failed to simulate the pause, which produce a non-existant tropical troposphere hot spot, and which produce sensitivity about 2x observed. Moreover, Exxon joint with others published over 100 papers on AGW and contributed to several IPCC iterations. For several years (since at least 2010 when they acquired XTO to become the largest US natural gas producer) Exxon has publicly supported a carbon tax, because it hurts coal 3x more than natural gas. All public information, no hidden secret research on CAGW. That is where Schneiderman’s Martin Act fishing expedition will fail. And the Martin Act staute of limitations in this case is 2 years.
The whole Merchant’s of Doubt tobacco analogy is based on a delusional warmunist premise that CAGW and tobacco (Big Oil, Big Tobacco) are equivalent. They aren’t at all from an evidentiary perspective. The AG’s either know or should know that already. Shows political grandstanding.
The harder the AG’s go at it, the worse it will end for them.

Reply to  ristvan
June 15, 2016 2:48 pm

Their models not only haven’t predicted the future; they can’t even predict the past.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Vancouver
Reply to  TA
June 15, 2016 2:49 pm

The lie has to lead to actual loss. If the ‘lies’ helped the stock price, there was no fraud.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Vancouver
June 15, 2016 4:06 pm

Except under the NY Martin Act.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Vancouver
June 16, 2016 5:42 am

Crispin. If lies are used to raise the stock price, then the buyers were defrauded because they paid a higher price than they would have if the truth is known. Even if it overall goes up over time, they were still cheated out of some of their profits.
That’s not a valid tack in this argument.

Gary Pearse
June 15, 2016 2:29 pm

Back in the days, I used to think maybe we should have women running the world. they would excell because they would feel under pressure to show their stuff and no old girl networks. I had a sister who was a genius and a very strong smart mother. I was very liberated in those days and mocked chauvinist blather by men who felt women weren’t up to the task.
Now, I’m scared sick at the prospect. I think they have already begun to take over and it seems they are largely of the socialist persuasion. Perhaps because of the activist role women rights types lived through. Maybe the nurturing instinct is too strong (nanny governmental tendency). I guess I invisioned a parade of Golda Meiers and Maggy Thatchers, and not Gloria Steinems and Naomi Orestes.
Hillary could be the end of the world. Ontario’s cabinet has a woman premier and is half women presiding over an agenda that would scare the hello of AL Gore. Their are more a nd more women mayors and governors and premiers and other top officials and all the dog catchers are still men. Political correctness is the new freedom of speech paradigm. We’re free but have to practise self censorship on most topics. Donald Trump isn’t crass or unusually gauche and insensitive. He’s just old fashioned.
Could the old boys and Senator McCarthy have been right? Perhaps they were visionaries.

June 15, 2016 2:39 pm

IMO, this is “legalized extortion”. And if I was Exxon I would leave the U.S. Result would be loss of thousands of jobs which would include the Domino effects on individuals and small businesses.
If this is accomplished, then other companies are also at risk for this same kind of tactic.

Science or Fiction
June 15, 2016 2:49 pm

If these lunatic Attorney Generals are allowed to continue like this we will see the development of climate sharia laws before long – just like attempted in California just recently. California legislature shelves their ugly attempt at killing the first amendment. If United States Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, had any integrity – she would have stopped these attacks on free thought. However, the executive branch in United States has been completely messed up. A culture of lying and deception, has been revealed in the last bastion of truth and decency – Department of Justice. State of Texas court order against The United States of America. This court order is a must read for all interested in the future of United States.
Here are the quotes I found most essential. This is the introduction to the court order:
“An exchange between two characters from a recent popular film exemplifies what this case is, and has been, about:
FBI Agent Hoffman: Don’t go Boy Scout on me. We don’t have a rulebook here.
Attorney James Donovan: You’re Agent Hoffman, yeah?
FBI Agent Hoffman: Yeah.
Attorney James Donovan: German extraction?
FBI Agent Hoffman: Yeah, so?
Attorney James Donovan: My name’s Donovan, Irish, both sides, mother and father. I’m Irish, you’re German, but what makes us both Americans? Just one thing . . . the rulebook. We call it the Constitution and we agree to the rules and that’s what makes us Americans. It’s all that makes us Americans, so don’t tell me there’s no rulebook . . . .”
“Whether it be the Constitution or statutory law, this entire case, at least in this Court, has been about allegiance to the rulebook. … The question addressed by this Court was whether the Government had to play by the rules. This Court held that it did. The Fifth Circuit has now also held that the Government must play by the rules, and, of course, that decision is now before the Supreme Court. It was no surprise to this Court, or quite frankly to any experienced legal observer, that this question would ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Consequently, the resolution of whether the Executive Branch can ignore and/or act contrary to existing law or whether it must play by the rulebook now rests entirely with that Court.”

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 15, 2016 2:53 pm
June 15, 2016 2:57 pm

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is just another Harvard lack-luster graduate trying to surf the Hillary wave into relevance. She is representative of the cancer that lilberals have become, and how dangerous they are to the Constitution of The United States. For them, it is Molotov cocktail time for our founding documents. That’s Harvard.

michael hart
June 15, 2016 2:58 pm

This sorry tale reminds us of an important fact: You will know the day when ‘renewable’ energy suppliers start making seriously renewable profits that are not derived from government subsidies, because that is the day ambulance-chasing lawyers will be all over them like a bad cold.
Lawyers generally aren’t stupid. As the famous bank robber allegedly said in response to the question about why he robbed banks: “Because that’s where the money is.”

June 15, 2016 3:03 pm

I think I’ll have some fried quash for dinner.

June 15, 2016 3:12 pm

Exxon’s complaint even notes how Maura basically announced the results of her investigation before she even sent her subpoena to the company.
Well, of course. The D.A.s of America have been out of control since the 50s at least. The courts are not a place where “fairness” or “justice” are found. The courts are where government law is wielded against the unfortunate.

Walt D.
June 15, 2016 3:35 pm

They need to be disbarred.

Reply to  Walt D.
June 16, 2016 8:24 am

They need to be barred. As in behind them.

4 eyes
June 15, 2016 3:59 pm

“Schneiderman said. “The First Amendment does not give you the right to commit fraud.”” That means politicians, climate scientists, activists, the IPCC, etc., do not have the right to commit fraud. These AGs are probably making a lot of other people nervous.

Pat Frank
June 15, 2016 4:05 pm

The objective idiocy of the whole “Exxon knew” thing is the presumption that climate models were accurate in 1970. Climate models aren’t accurate now, much less 46 years ago.
Maura Healey has apparently not done any due diligence. She is either willfully ignorant (an impeachable offense, likely), shamefully incompetent (worthy of dismissal), or just plain stupid (how’d that Harvard thing go, again?). Along with all those other As G.

Reply to  Pat Frank
June 15, 2016 4:11 pm

Yup. And on the Harvard thing, University hired Naomi Oreskes with lifetime tenure. Nuff said.
So that has had direct consequences concerning their considerable major giving effort focused on this 3x alumnus over the past decade. Zip, nada, nothing until Oreskes is gone. No matter what School within the university.

Pat Frank
Reply to  ristvan
June 15, 2016 5:13 pm

Agree with your position, Rud. Universities have fundamentally betrayed their institutional mission of dispassionate truth-seeking. It’s hard to believe their officers have done so unwittingly.
State universities in particular have violated their tenure agreement with the citizens, by politicizing their curricula. They no longer qualify for support with public money.
I believe that state governors should lower the financial boom on them, and make the administrations clean house, especially in the advocacy-riven culture studies departments.

Reply to  Pat Frank
June 16, 2016 8:26 am

With the MA legislature being almost 100% Democrat, there’s no way a Democrat AG is going to be disbarred. Especially when her crime benefits the Democrat party.

June 15, 2016 4:21 pm

The AG’s are going to have to prove that CAGW exists, before they can prove Exxon tried to hide the fact.
The Climate Change Gurus have not been able to prove CAGW is real, so how much success can the AG’s have at trying to prove it? My guess would be: not much.
I would love to see them try the case of CAGW in a courtroom. That would be worth watching!

Reply to  TA
June 16, 2016 8:28 am

With our new and improved politicized judiciary, the judge will just stipulate that CAGW exists, as proven by the states experts. And proceed from there.

June 15, 2016 4:26 pm

More evidence that AGW is religion, not science. It is a belief system and Healey’s statement, “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” requires no proof, it is simply accepted as fact by the believers. Objecting to her stand is just more evidence of conspiracy to her.

June 15, 2016 4:27 pm

“Climate models aren’t accurate now, much less 46 years ago.”
Amen. “Begging the Question.” Where are the correct Predictions from Catastrophic CO2-Climate Change “Science”? Zero.

Pieter F.
June 15, 2016 4:40 pm

The present arguments by the CAGW camp use data sets that begin around 1979. The investigation into the communications of skeptics goes back 40 years (to 1976). Apparently anthropogenic climate change was proved back in 1976 and the cover up of climate science began three years before their favorite data set got its first data point.

June 15, 2016 5:44 pm

Let’s see global cooling …the accepted science of the 1970’s , or the grossly inflated climate model projectionists of today . Who you going to believe ?
If the State of Massachusetts knew about the benefits of a warming world why didn’t they tell the public ?
On the other hand, if they thought the earth had a fever and humans were the cause why did they not outlaw the sale of gasoline ,natural gas and other fossil fuels ? Why haven’t they done it considering their pee their pants apparent concern ? Or is it just some lobbyist’s using their positions to try and shake down a company they decide to target . Why Exxon instead of every other end user of a legally produced and sold product ? Has Exxon already agreed to shut up/hurt feeling money and set the precedent for the next company to be targeted ?
Did the State of Massachusetts law makers ban the use of fossil fuels in all State buildings and in all State vehicles when they formed the opinion the world was warming and humans were the cause ? No ? Why would they then think one publically traded company is everyone’s mommy ?
What a transparent stunt to deflect attention and gold dig . I hope Exxon takes these clowns to the cleaners . carbon neutral of course .
Who cares what Exxon knows about anything . I would like to see the legal authority the elected lawmakers of Massachusetts gave the AG to pursue this fishing expedition and the laws they have passed to ban the use of fossil fuels if they think the public is at risk . Let’s see all the correspondence over the last 50 years that relates to climate change fear mongering . Include the global cooling scam of the 1970’s .
If they have not banned all fossil fuels and not protected the public with their knowledge then interest they are wide open to be sued as they have now acknowledged .

Jim A.
June 15, 2016 8:20 pm

Let’s start a fund to harass the AG’s who ceaselessly promote and prolong this kind of pointless aggression. Can’t we sue them in Civil court and incur some personal expense for them? There has to be a way to turn the tables on this predatory behavior.

Adrian O
June 15, 2016 8:58 pm

If you go after a company there will be a long litigation.
Without users, oil companies would not exist. It is better to start with someone who has CONFESSED that he knew that fossil fuels harm our future and kept using them. Such a person must be made an example, and jailed.
The first target should be the Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. She has all but confessed that she was aware that her fossil fuel based lifestyle destroys the planet, yet she continued. Did she switch his heating to wind (which is all but missing in the winter) and solar (also missing) during the fierce February snowstorms? NO! Did she fly only on that 100% electric plane, which takes a month to cross the ocean? NO! People can put her at the scene of her environmental crime, in Massachusetts.
ALL the people who made a big thing about climate should be jailed first. Mens Rea.
For how long?
It does not make much of a difference, as long as it is at least one year and no fossil fuels are used for their cells. It’s the renewable energy motel in the winter: People check in, but they don’t check out…
Here is evidence that Healey HAS used more than wind.
A $11,000 home windmill produces $7 worth of electricity in its 20 years lifetime.
That’s THE BEST SELLING wind turbine.
Consumer Reports did a year and a third long study in Yonkers with a turbine for which the installation was vetted by the building company itself as being perfect. They got 40 cents worth of electricity during that period.
The kit comes with explicit warnings that your roof must be unusually strong to keep the thing from falling through your attic upon you during storms.
Recouping cost of wind turbine may take more than a lifetime
(more like the whole Homo Sapiens period)

June 15, 2016 10:02 pm

I still think the endgame to all this is to set a precedent that prevents the Global Warming alarmists from being prosecuted for fraud.

Robert of Ottawa
June 16, 2016 2:36 am

It’s the process that is the punishment. It’s not clear what the crime is.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
June 16, 2016 6:37 am

Yes, interesting insight

The Grate Deign
June 16, 2016 4:18 am

She has the cutest dimples. That’s how you get to be a really good AG.

June 16, 2016 5:27 am

If this nonsense drives down Exxon-Mobil stock, I’m going to buy some.
/Mr Lynn

Coeur de Lion
June 16, 2016 5:47 am

I won’t have a word said against her – she’s a real dish

June 16, 2016 7:05 am

Exxon is firing back at Mass., seeking injunction

Craig Loehle
June 16, 2016 7:57 am

She wants 40 years of documents? The science was settled in 1986 before the IPCC even wrote a report? I want a refund on all the money spent on IPCC!!

Craig Loehle
Reply to  Craig Loehle
June 16, 2016 7:58 am

Sorry science settled in 1976?

June 16, 2016 3:08 pm

Surely Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is not a stupid as she looks?
No- even more stupid.

June 17, 2016 10:56 am

Ignore the AG. She has no legal grounds to stand on. Ignore and ridicule

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights