What Do We Want? Justice. When Do We Want It? Now.
There are a great number of things in our world today that seem to be dragging along, though we sure do wish they would happen right now. One, of course, is Robert Mueller’s findings on the Trump administration’s alleged collusion with Russia and financial improprieties. Even the White House says it would like to get this over with, though there isn’t a grain of sincerity in that remark. Bob: I’ll ride my bicycle to Washington and help you out on this free of charge if that will expedite your work.
But what about ExxonMobil and its concerted, four-decade-long effort to deceive the public what the oil giant knew about climate change and the effects it was in the process of causing? Wouldn’t it be nice to get all this wrapped up?
Here’s a story in the New York Times, in which investigative journalists analyzed 187 documents generated between 1977 and 2014, and concluded:
There is no doubt that Exxon Mobil misled the public about the state of climate science and its implications; they show a systematic, quantifiable discrepancy between what Exxon Mobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change in private and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public.
We applied an empirical method known as content analysis to all relevant, publicly available internal company files that have led to allegations against Exxon Mobil, as well as all peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications offered by the company in response. We also analyzed 36 of the company’s paid “advertorials” about climate change that appeared as editorial-style advertisements on the Op-Ed pages of The New York Times between 1989 and 2004.
So far, that’s not too interesting. So we have an oil company that is morally capable of lying, and profiting at the expense of humankind’s health and safety. It that a surprise to anyone?
What will be interesting, however, is the result of the criminal probe that’s been initiated by several states’ attorneys general. Deliberately misrepresenting the value of public traded companies’ assets is fraud perpetrated against investors. And here in the U.S., ruining the environment isn’t a crime; it’s not even particularly shameful. But investor fraud sends an occasional CEO here and there off to the slammer. We’ll see.
Whatever happens, please, make it soon.
Craig,
That’s just brilliant !
Why bother with all that tiresome, time consuming business of due process, evidence, legal safeguards, forensic examination etc ?
So much simpler to just make an allegation, get a media outlet like the NYT, add a few internet rants, an ambitious and dishonest political prosecutor, round up a convenient lynch mob and hold a quick show trial and rapid execution.
Great stuff !
Except when it happens to you !
The reason why the Exxon ‘investigation’ has stalled, is because most of the Attourneys-General have backed out. Those who remain are fighting for their own survival as the courts and DoJ investigate their conduct.
The proposition was always politically motivated with little chance of success. It was at best an extortion attempt, but that needs weaker and less resolute victims than Exxon.
Similar attempts in other jurisdictions have all failed. Investor fraud requires a genuine complainant who has suffered loss. No such complainant has come forward against Exxon.
The allegations of Russian involvement in the Presidential election campaign are tenuous and complex. Obviously, in such a highly political investigation it’s important to find unbiased and impartial investigators, who can conduct a lawful and thorough investigation.
Since your rabid bias would disqualify you from sitting as a jury member, it’s difficult to see how your totally unqualified, highly prejudiced presence would be useful to the investigation team !
What you are calling for is not “justice”.
My advice is to have a lie down with a copy of “to kill a Mocking bird’ and calm down.
Craig,
Perhaps you should consider the growing trend in the US for Corporations not to simply settle cases, but fight back to vindicate themselves against lawsuits launched for political purpose.
Cabot Oil And Gas, decided to fight a litigant and his ambulance chasing class action law firm. Having won, Cabot decided to teach the law firm a lesson and took out a counter-suit.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2017/08/22/cabot-oil-and-gas-declines-to-play-sue-and-settle/#6236a4f15cfb
Energy Transfer operators of the Dakota Access Pipeline have filed suit against Greenpeace and other environmental activist groups alleging a violation US federal racketeering laws.
This isn’t the first lawsuit extreme environmentalist group are facing. In 2015, a Federal Appellate Court ruled the RICO did apply to such cases, albeit on a more narrow basis than is customary. Furthermore the court ruled criminal as well as civil penalties could apply.
Such cases are complex and the courts will be at pains to ensure Greenpeace and activist groups constitutional rights are not compromised.
On the other hand,knowingly conspiring to commit unlawful, malicious action intended to intimidate and financial or political advantage to the detriment of others is not a constitutional right.
The basic premise is not that demonstration and protest is actionable, but when such activities become organized and sustained campaigns, the organizers can be held accountable for encouraging unlawful activity if certain motivations can be identified.