Dubious Defense Strategy Pervades 2018 Criminal Procedings: The Investigation Against Me Must Stop
Coincidentally, two of today’s most powerful entities, Donald Trump, the leader of the free world, and ExxonMobil, the planet’s largest oil company, have something extremely important in common: they’re both desperately trying to make the legal processes (that are steadily gaining steam against them) simply go away.
The rigor of the 24-hour news cycle in the U.S. makes it essentially impossible for any American man, woman or child to be unaware of Trump’s latest unhinged interview, hiring of a new defense lawyer, or asinine tweet calling for the disbandment of special counsel Robert Muller’s investment into collusion, conflicts of interest, and obstruction of justice.
By contrast, the ExxonMobil situation is less visible, but we’re hearing more about it all the time. Like Trump’s, their legal tack is demanding the legal proceedings against them be called off. Just tell prosecutors to fold their tents and split.
Hey, that sounds like a good idea. If Bill Cosby had thought of that, maybe he wouldn’t be headed off to die in prison.
But sadly, according to this article, no dice. A Massachusetts judge has ruled that ExxonMobil cannot stop a probe into whether the oil giant misled shareholders for decades about the dangers of climate change and its impact on their business. The judge, in a Friday ruling, found that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey has grounds to pursue its civil investigation into the matter even though Exxon is not technically an in-resident corporation. The judgement follows after a federal judge in New York dismissed a similar lawsuit aimed at ending the climate change probe late last month. In that lawsuit, Exxon argued that Ms Healey and her New York counterpart, Eric Schneiderman, were pursuing their climate probes in bad faith. The judge dismissed the argument as “implausible”.
Craig,
Meanwhile in the more important Federal court jurisdictions, Exxon is doing very well.
Federal judges took a dim view of arguments like those that have been advanced by New York’s activist AG Eric Schneiderman as part of his climate fraud investigation into Exxon Mobil.
While the federal lawsuits have no direct bearing on state investigations, the judges’ responses highlight the investigation’s multiple weaknesses.
The second federal judge also dismissed the argument that Exxon Mobil has been using the “wrong” carbon price in its internal accounting methodology.
Schneiderman’s climate fraud investigation into Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) was dealt a notable, albeit indirect, blow in recent weeks as two different federal judges took issue with two of the legal arguments that have served as grounds for the investigation.
Actions in state courts are not usually any indication of how an action in the US Supreme Court may rule, but resulting in US Federal courts give some insight into the thinking of the US Supreme Court.
Like the Mueller inquiry, the US legal system does allow for protracted litigation which are mostly just spurious (and malicious) fishing expeditions.
Craig,
Doesn’t look as if Robert Mueller is having much luck in Court.
“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s legal team. “You really care about what information Mr Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever.”
The judge went to suggest the Mueller inquiry lied about the scope of the investigation,and are giving the appearance of e seeking “unfettered power” to bring down the President.
Judge Ellis summed up the argument of the Special Counsel’s Office as, “We said this was what the investigation was about, but we are not bound by it and we were lying.”
Mueller’s team says its authorities are laid out in documents including the August 2017 scope memo, but has “secret powers because they involve ongoing investigations and national security matters that cannot be publicly disclosed, not even to a Federal Judge”.
Judge Ellis remain unimpressed and ordered prosecutors two weeks to produce for his perusal an unredacted “scope memo” or provide a legal explanation as to why not.
Could be a setback. I’m looking forward to seeing the “scope” memo; from what I’ve read, it’s extremely broad.