Skip to main content

View Diary: Corruption scandal brewing at Clinton State Dept. over Tar Sands Review (246 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm honestly befuddled (15+ / 0-)

    as to why you've hitched your wagon to "illegality" as being the benchmark here.  There's a cumulative stench of impropriety, conflict of interest and down right incompetence.  

    This review process is based on Executive Order 13337 written by George W. Bush in 2004 -- it is fundamentally an expedited process for certifying energy related pipelines.  While the process originates in the State Dept. it is also supposed to be reviewed by 8 agencies.  Please recall that Rumsfeld was Sec. of State and all other agency heads were mere rubber stampers.  Most projects were rammed through in record speed.

    I have zero clue how this debacle will end, but EPA has already delayed this process by two years because the first two EIS were seriously flawed.  Actual checks are taking place.  Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Homeland Security and Energy have to weigh in.  Chu sounds like his is leaning pro, unfortunately.  

    While the Bureau of Land Management can grant right of way over federal lands - there remains a serious test under Eminent Domain re: private lands.  The feds have to demonstrate a takings for the common good -- I think they will not be able to do that without completely gutting Eminent Domain.

    After Citizens United, it is basically legal to buy elections.  Does that eliminate cause for concern?

    Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:50:57 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You've still shown me nothing illegal or improper (0+ / 0-)

      There's ALWAYS cause for concern.
      But don't you think that a scandal requires some illegality or impropriety to be a scandal? I ask again--please point to the illegality or inpropriety in THIS case, not all the rest of the cases you can think of.
      Read the emails---I have-----and point to the one you think is illegal or officially improper. Without that what basis do you have  to call it a scandal? Its just normal behavior.
      "Hitchhed my wagon?" Benchmark? What other benchmark of a scandal is there besides being illegal and/or improper? All Ive asked is for someone to point out ONE thing thats illegal or outside the standard of normal, evry day political behavior: A senator writing in support of a project---NO quid pro quo asked for or received. A State Department  staffer in a friendly relationship with a lobbyist---again no quid pro quo, the quoted email in the diary is a fraking weather report!.
      Somebody a few comments up says its--evil? Point to the thing you think is "evil."  
      I'm looking for evidence that there's something officially wrong here and no one has showed it to me yet.

      I'm befuddled too----if there's no official impropriety or illegality and its totally within  common every day, bi partisan behavior then why is it a scandal?

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:14:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not interested (12+ / 0-)

        in repeating ad nauseum why I think your "illegal" requirement is a red herring.

        I'm an enviro attorney.  I review proposed regs.  There's a ton of case law regarding flawed regs which are not necessarily illegal -- but the flaws are so egregious that they've had to be re-written or excised.  You can keep beating this drum but I don't think you know how the regulatory and administrative process works and doesn't work.

        Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:21:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A scandal requires some wrongdoing, doesn't it? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not beating ANY drum or no more than you are anyway.
          What I'm sayin has nothing at all to do with the regulatory or administrative process, nor does this diary other than calling it corrupt.
          The title of this dary is "Corrupttion Scandal brewing......."
          IN order to use the term corruption or scandal, some wrongdoing is implied. EVERY scandal has some allleged wrongdoing at the bottom of it, be it a burglary or a blowjob or its not a scandal---its a normal event.
           I am asking---and haven't been answered yet by you or anyone else---for simple proof----no not even that, for believable accusations of corruption in the "evidence" presented here.
          If you think that there is anything in the offered text of the diary that constitutes proof or even a believable allegation that there is conrrruption in this affair than point to it---quote it!!

          “It’s precisely because you have connections that you’re sought after and hired,” offered as praise for Elliot’s work

          The article calls it "damning evidence" Damning evidence of what? What is that "damning evidence of? You don't know and neither does anyone else because you don't know the context it was taken out of unless youve read the emails in question. Have you?. Or have you just read the quotes here?  I was hoping the Repugs and Tea PArtiers were the only ones damning with innuendoes and taking things out of context. Another illusion dies hard.
          Just like all these other one sentence quotes here. If you don't know the context, i.e. haven't read the whole email you don't know if thats "damning" or not or what its evidence of. That she likes Ellliot IS NOT ILLEGAL! Its not even improper unless it can be proven That one or the other profited from the relationship in an ilegal manner---THATS why questions of legallity are important. I couldn't imagine an attorney arguing that questions of legality aren't important but here you are.
          And you know as well as me there's no"damning evidence' here or at least it hasn't been presented yet. Or point to it and explain why its "damning."

           None of these one sentence lines is any "damning proof" just because Mother Jones says it is. Look beyond the hyperbole and the desire to throw mud on the Obama administration..

          Happy just to be alive

          by exlrrp on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:02:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong: Cheney Inviting Oil Lobbyist To WH (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            beach babe in fl

            There was quite a scandal with Cheney inviting in oil lobbyists to consult about energy policy. What was scandalous was who was involved in setting energy policy, not that the scandal derived from Cheney committing a crime. The same also goes for the fake reporter in the Bush WH press room, which that wasn't illegal, but was highly scandalous. Any number of past scandals haven't been considered scandalous because an alleged crime took place, but have been considered scandals for other reasons.

    •  If you're going to use the word "scandal" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      white blitz, exlrrp

      then it should be based on something.  Where is the "scandal"?  Someone wrote an email saying, "You're hired because you have connections.", those connections being that said individual worked on Hillary's campaign.  OK, so where's the "scandal"?  I don't agree that somethimg must be "illegal" in order to be a "scandal", but please give us something more than this in order to apply the "scandal" label.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site