Bernie's Claim That HILLARY Is In The Pocket Of Big Oil... It's FALSE!

[lunamagica]

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/2/1509392/-Rachel-Maddow-Show-Analyzes-Bernie-s-Claim-That-HILLARY-Is-In-The-Pocket-Of-Big-Oil-It-s-FALSE

Interesting analysis from the Rachel Maddow Show in an article titled “Money From Big Oil Isn’t Always What It Appears To Be”. The information presented ran VERY CONTRARY to the information Bernie, his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters are perpetuating. I find this source very credible, as Steve Benen is an Emmy Nominated political writer for The Rachel Maddow Show and an extremely respected political journalist. Some of the highlights:

www.msnbc.com/...
_____________________________________________________________________________________
For its part, the Sanders campaign highlighted the encounter and insisted that Clinton “has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal industry.” This morning, the senator himself repeated the charge, arguing, “The fact of the matter is Secretary Clinton has taken significant money from the fossil fuel industry.”
The point of the criticisms is hardly subtle: Sanders and his supporters want Democrats to see Clinton as someone who may not follow through on her energy and environmental commitments because of the money she’s received from Big Oil.
So, is that fair? Let’s unwrap this a bit.
The Washington Post published a report today, relying on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which drew an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle: technically, both Clinton and Sanders have received money from “the oil and gas industry.”

The total for Clinton’s campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders’s, it’s about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer.

If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that’s counted as “oil and gas industry” money.

It would be ridiculous, of course, to suggest the Sanders has been corrupted because that guy, “feeling the Bern,” chipped in $27. But because of the way contributions are categorized, money from an oil company CEO and a donation from a gas-station janitor are both counted the exact same way: it’s technically money from the “oil and gas industry.”
MSNBC’s report noted that Clinton has not “taken any money from PACs tied to the oil and gas industry, or companies themselves.” Lobbyists with at least some connection to the industry have made contributions, but the bulk of that money has gone to super PACs that Clinton cannot legally control.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

So my question is… Why, if there is so little air between Hillary and Sanders, is his campaign pushing a weak, if not completely untrue narrative about Hillary? Desperation? Swinging maliciously to tear down the front runner? It seems to me if this is untruthful… Bernie is damaging Hillary and creating a false narrative that is unfairly damaging her standing with voters who hold the environment as one of their top issues. Maybe it would be more honest to look at Hillary’s positions and voting record on this very important issue.

So let’s unpack Hillary’s VOTING record on oil and gas:

Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)

And let's unpack her positions on oil and gas:

We need a bridge from coal to natural gas to clean energy. (Mar 2016)
Half a billion solar panels in first 4 years. (Feb 2016)
Opposes Keystone, Withheld opinion at first. (Oct 2015)
Get tough with energy speculators and with OPEC cartel. (May 2008)
Gas tax holiday, paid for by windfall oil tax. (May 2008)
GovWatch: Gas tax holiday saves $8B; but that’s 64 cents/day. (May 2008)
Investigate gas price manipulation; add windfall profits tax. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, FTC is investigating gas price manipulation. (Apr 2008)
$650 for help with energy bills to those who can’t afford it. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Oil & gas giveaways stripped from final 2005 Bill. (Jan 2008)
Investigate & move toward energy efficiency and conservation. (Oct 2007)
Opposes Yucca Mountain; earthquake fault goes under it. (Sep 2007)
Invest in alternative energy; jobs that won’t be outsourced. (Aug 2007)
End Big Oil tax break; $50 billion for strategic energy fund. (Jul 2007)
Agnostic about nuclear power until waste & cost issue solved. (Jul 2007)
Energy Independence 2020: $50B for Strategic Energy Fund. (Jun 2007)
Extensive funding into alternative energy. (Jun 2007)
Will make big oil fund alternative energy research. (Feb 2007)
$50B strategic energy fund from taxing oil companies. (Oct 2006)
Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us. (Jun 2006)
Need to move toward energy efficiency and conservation. (Jan 2006)
Supports oil reserve release & fund conservation. (Oct 2000)

www.ontheissues.org/...

These are not the positions, actions and votes of a person who has been “bought” by the oil and gas industry and to further that notion is deceptive at best and an outright lie at worst. It’s time for people to stop pushing this false narrative. As my grandpa used to say, “You might as well leave Rover at home, because that dog just won’t hunt!"
RSS
REBLOGGED BY

Hot list


Interesting analysis from the Rachel Maddow Show in an article titled “Money From Big Oil Isn’t Always What It Appears To Be”. The information presented ran VERY CONTRARY to the information Bernie, his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters are perpetuating. I find this source very credible, as Steve Benen is an Emmy Nominated political writer for The Rachel Maddow Show and an extremely respected political journalist. Some of the highlights:

www.msnbc.com/...
_____________________________________________________________________________________
For its part, the Sanders campaign highlighted the encounter and insisted that Clinton “has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal industry.” This morning, the senator himself repeated the charge, arguing, “The fact of the matter is Secretary Clinton has taken significant money from the fossil fuel industry.”
The point of the criticisms is hardly subtle: Sanders and his supporters want Democrats to see Clinton as someone who may not follow through on her energy and environmental commitments because of the money she’s received from Big Oil.
So, is that fair? Let’s unwrap this a bit.
The Washington Post published a report today, relying on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which drew an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle: technically, both Clinton and Sanders have received money from “the oil and gas industry.”

The total for Clinton’s campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders’s, it’s about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer.

If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that’s counted as “oil and gas industry” money.

It would be ridiculous, of course, to suggest the Sanders has been corrupted because that guy, “feeling the Bern,” chipped in $27. But because of the way contributions are categorized, money from an oil company CEO and a donation from a gas-station janitor are both counted the exact same way: it’s technically money from the “oil and gas industry.”
MSNBC’s report noted that Clinton has not “taken any money from PACs tied to the oil and gas industry, or companies themselves.” Lobbyists with at least some connection to the industry have made contributions, but the bulk of that money has gone to super PACs that Clinton cannot legally control.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

So my question is… Why, if there is so little air between Hillary and Sanders, is his campaign pushing a weak, if not completely untrue narrative about Hillary? Desperation? Swinging maliciously to tear down the front runner? It seems to me if this is untruthful… Bernie is damaging Hillary and creating a false narrative that is unfairly damaging her standing with voters who hold the environment as one of their top issues. Maybe it would be more honest to look at Hillary’s positions and voting record on this very important issue.

So let’s unpack Hillary’s VOTING record on oil and gas:

Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)

And let's unpack her positions on oil and gas:

We need a bridge from coal to natural gas to clean energy. (Mar 2016)
Half a billion solar panels in first 4 years. (Feb 2016)
Opposes Keystone, Withheld opinion at first. (Oct 2015)
Get tough with energy speculators and with OPEC cartel. (May 2008)
Gas tax holiday, paid for by windfall oil tax. (May 2008)
GovWatch: Gas tax holiday saves $8B; but that’s 64 cents/day. (May 2008)
Investigate gas price manipulation; add windfall profits tax. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, FTC is investigating gas price manipulation. (Apr 2008)
$650 for help with energy bills to those who can’t afford it. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Oil & gas giveaways stripped from final 2005 Bill. (Jan 2008)
Investigate & move toward energy efficiency and conservation. (Oct 2007)
Opposes Yucca Mountain; earthquake fault goes under it. (Sep 2007)
Invest in alternative energy; jobs that won’t be outsourced. (Aug 2007)
End Big Oil tax break; $50 billion for strategic energy fund. (Jul 2007)
Agnostic about nuclear power until waste & cost issue solved. (Jul 2007)
Energy Independence 2020: $50B for Strategic Energy Fund. (Jun 2007)
Extensive funding into alternative energy. (Jun 2007)
Will make big oil fund alternative energy research. (Feb 2007)
$50B strategic energy fund from taxing oil companies. (Oct 2006)
Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us. (Jun 2006)
Need to move toward energy efficiency and conservation. (Jan 2006)
Supports oil reserve release & fund conservation. (Oct 2000)

www.ontheissues.org/...

These are not the positions, actions and votes of a person who has been “bought” by the oil and gas industry and to further that notion is deceptive at best and an outright lie at worst. It’s time for people to stop pushing this false narrative. As my grandpa used to say, “You might as well leave Rover at home, because that dog just won’t hunt!"

[TheBlackAdder]

1. Yes, Let's follow the money... Actual inbred oil (Koch/BP) relationships, like Hillary's Podesta.

.


Check out the link...

Fracking, KXL, If election, would she do a Chris Christie and let ExxonMobile out of a Climate Change/Pollution settlement?



Hillary Clinton rakes in money from fossil fuel interests

Here’s just a partial list of the fossil fuel–friendly bundlers who raised money for Clinton from April through June:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/hillary-clinton-rakes-in-money-from-fossil-fuel-interests/

Heather Podesta and Tony Podesta have raised $31,150 and $74,575, respectively. The power ex-couple are big-shot Democratic lobbyists. Tony’s brother John is Clinton’s campaign chair and former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton. Even though John Podesta is considered a climate hawk, Tony and his ex-wife Heather represent fossil fuel companies. Heather’s recent past clients include Marathon Oil and Bill Koch’s Oxbow Carbon, a coal giant, and from 2004 to 2006 she lobbied for Koch Industries. Tony lobbied for BP in the wake of its disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, and through last year he represented Golden Pass, a company co-owned by ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum that wants to export liquefied natural gas. To be fair, they also work on behalf of renewable fuel companies — Tony represents SolarReserve, a solar power company, and Heather lobbies for the ethanol industry. You might call the Podestas the very embodiment of the Obama/Clinton “all of the above” energy policy.

But the contrast between her and her opponents is clear, and it’s indicative of real policy differences. O’Malley has laid out a set of strong, detailed proposals to combat climate change. These include not just measures Obama has begun taking, like regulating carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, but ones he hasn’t, like adopting zero-tolerance regulation for methane leaks from oil and gas wells and denying new offshore oil leasing permits. Clinton has not endorsed any stances beyond Obama’s except for charging more for coal leases.

“Hillary Clinton’s position is stuck in the past,” says Jamie Henn, a spokesperson for 350 Action. “We have the tools to transition away from fossil fuels. What about all the jobs lost because of climate impacts? We need a president who is willing to make tough decisions about how to transition our economy in the face of climate risk.”

.

[EndElectoral]

3. Thanks for the facts. btw..It's Greenpeace and Huffington Post pointing up her big oil money connect

She keeps deflecting, trying to blame Sanders for "her" connections. She is the consummate politician.

[Dragonfli]

11. Mother Jones was writing about her connections before even them

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

[MaeScott]

4. Follow the money always. She has a super pac

To sop that money up in.

[George II]

12. The Koch brothers have spent more money on the Sanders campaign than the Clinton campaign.

[TheBlackAdder]

17. Not because they support him, only stupid people think that, but to undermine HRC as inevitable.

.


I'm sure there were a few who did that back in 2008, not expecting Obama to get in office.


.

[George II]

21. So, she's in the pocket of the Koch Brothers and their allies, but they want to undermine her.

Geeze, that makes sense.

[TheBlackAdder]

24. It would to you. But, to undermine both so that a GOPer gets elected. But, you know that.

.


They don't think Sanders can win, like most pundits and analysts. If he did, they'd shit a brick!

I could post tweenish laughing emoticons too, if I weren't an adult.


.

[dchill]

54. +1

[basselope]

2. Sadly.. they are EXACTLY the positions of someone who has been bought.

[George II]

13. How so?

[basselope]

15. Because they are nonsense.

She didn't attempt to tackle the big issues or take a real stand. She'll vote against some minor subsidies and say "See.. I'm against them".. but that all is a drop in the bucket.

[George II]

20. So you can't be specific. Good to know. Thanks!

[basselope]

26. I was very specific.

[George II]

33. Back to my first question - how so?

[basselope]

36. Because none of these votes have any REAL impact.

[George II]

39. Well then, Clinton could punt back to the typical Sanders "excuse" for a bad vote:

"The bill would have passed anyway". But she doesn't, she takes responsibility for her votes in the Senate, she doesn't look for a way to wriggle out of it.

[basselope]

50. LOL.

Except for her vote on the Iraq war which she tried to explain away for 8 years by referring to her "floor speech", until she finally had to admit that she just made ANOTHER mistake, and the time she was for TPP before she was against it, or why she waited so long to come out against Keystone.

Or we go into her record on Fracking?

All she knows how to do is wriggle.

[DURHAM D]

5. For man years my Dad repaired the diesel engines

that were used to run pump jacks. He was a socialist. But to BS I guess he would be classified as part of the evil oil and gas industry.

BS makes me

[Armstead]

6. Did your Dad wear expensive suits and rake in big bucks to buy politicians?

Did he write policies and hand them to politicians?

Did he pocket huge sums in subsidies?

Did he play an influential role in foreign policy?

Did he support SuperPacs and bundle contributions for candidates?

If not, I suspect Bernie would call him a good member of the working class.

[George II]

14. A sister and brother of mine were bank tellers (barely minimum wage workers) and.....

...my father worked in a bank's data processing department. Some clown here claimed that I came from a family of "banksters"!

[Perogie]

30. putting words in Bernie's mouth.

You must be awesome if you know exactly what Bernie would say about your dad.

Your statement reminds me of what Republicans do. Take a statement someone says about one specific person and apply it to others in an attempt to smear.

Maybe you should find a more conservative site for your theories.

[George II]

35. Well, since Sanders claims that the contributors to Clinton's campaign are......

......from the fossil fuel industry simply because they work for companies in that industry (note he didn't go into specific detail about WHAT their occupations are, which are readily available in Clinton's filings*), we know what Sanders would say.

That * is there because the Clinton campaign submitted their required reports in full compliance with FEC regulations and Campaign Finance laws. Unfortunately we've seen that the Sanders campaign submitted several non-compliant reports and thousands of the Sanders contributions are under investigation.

And who is going on about a "corrupt campaign finance system"?

[Perogie]

51. wow, you really don't know much

[George II]

52. Okay, if I really don't know much, where does that leave you?

[Merryland]

32. nonsense. n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. she supports and encourages fracking. thats enough for me to vote against her

Its so typical of her positions.. No concern for the long term effects, just drill baby drill cause it keeps that lobbyist and super pac money rolling in.

The People are waking up.
Sorry for your loss.

[mcar]

8. Excellent analysis!

[George II]

9. Unfortunately Sanders doesn't understand the campaign finance laws. Just because someone WORKS....

....for a company doesn't mean that the PRIVATE contributions they give to a campaign is from "big oil", "banks", yadda yadda.

The way the Sanders people get around that is they have their contributors do so in small increments, small enough that they don't have to itemize occupations and employers. They have tens of millions of dollars in contributions that they've failed to itemize. Who knows what "industries" all that money came from.

Of course, the Clinton campaign hasn't received letter after letter from the FEC (with hundreds of pages of attachments) demanding details. The Sanders campaign has.

[loyalsister]

45. Bridges for sale

Money from the industry itself may not go directly to the campaign, but she is benefitting from it none the less. Why doesn't she decry any support from a superpac that takes money from them?
Would we really accept a claim that republicans who don't accept direct campaign contributions from Koch brothers don't benefit from the money they donate to superpacs?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

10. still blaming Sanders, when those are public records

No matter how they try and wiggle out of it, the american people understand this legalized corruption and they are pushing back.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. You're correct. NOT in their pocket. In their fucking undergarments.

[nc4bo]

25. Big ole +1. nt

[LexVegas]

18. Bernie has no integrity left. nt

[Marr]

19. No, no-- she lives in Wall Street's pocket. She only vacations in Big Oil's pocket.

[Fumesucker]

22. Yep, Hillary is *owned* by Wall Street, Big Oil only has a long term sublease

[Sancho]

23. The vast majority of Hillary bashing is RW rumor...

and very little based on facts.

This is a good example. Frankly, I think a lot of the constant "bash and trash" are trolls or operatives, not really Bernie supporters.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. "I think a lot..." I'm doubting that.

And fuck your RW shaming bullshit. It's not working, it hasn't worked, and it isn't GOING to work.

[Sancho]

34. ...you protest too much...

Bernie won't win the primary. If there was a mercy rule in politics, the game would have been called already.

It's good for Hillary to have a sparing partner and stay in the news, so I hope Bernie doesn't quit too soon. Too bad that it's so easy to create swarms of angry people (Tea Party, Trumpets, Blemmings, etc.). The majority of manipulations behind those groups have been RW $'s, and clearly some of the folks on DU are operatives. It's not hard to see.

I figure that as long as true Bernbots are wasting time bashing Hillary here instead of volunteering somewhere, it's better for Hillary. If someone is getting paid to post all those trashy threads, the Kochs are wasting money that they won't have for the GE. Either way works.

[cherokeeprogressive]

40. That's some paranoia of the First Fucking Degree.

"... clearly some of the folks on DU are operatives."

And what's with the "Blemmings" bullshit? Are you not aware that the whole lemming thing was a falsehood perpetuated by Disney? No one with an ounce of credibility would use lemmings as a metaphor for anything other than falsehood.

[Sancho]

70. Would you prefer the charge of the Bernie Brigade?

[highprincipleswork]

28. This is a clever bullshit response from Clinton campaign.

[treestar]

29. Some things end up "true" due to repetition

And that no one looks into it further. Thanks for the information.

[Merryland]

31. She's in everybody else's pocket - of course she's in theirs. n/t

[CentralCoaster]

37. Bernie never actually said that. Just like he never had a meltdown.

These are fabricated defenses to statements that have never been made.

They are, as such, lies.

How it works:

Mangle a statement someone makes into something it's not, then feign righteous outrage.

Next, use this opportunity to list a bunch of half-measures and public statements in a weak attempt to deflect from the facts.

Look, Clinton has shown tons of support for energy industry players, much of it during her stint as SOS and some of it to the benefit of multi-national oil interests, not just US interests.

To her, it's part of her job to support the job creators and let that wealth trickle down.

Nothing wrong with that, but let's not fool ourselves-- she takes they're money and they have plenty more to give.

[snowy owl]

38. Don't trust Maddow. H has shown some support for fracking & Keystone. C'mon you guys.

For it before she was against it...

[BainsBane]

41. The Washington Post ruled the claim three Pinocchios

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/

Also see
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/01/why-hillary-clinton-is-justifiably-annoyed-by-critiques-of-her-big-oil-fundraising/?postshare=8651459544364948&tid=ss_fb

[lunamagica]

46. Yes, Three out of four Pinocchios, which means "Significant factual errors and/or obvious

contradictions. This gets into the realm of “mostly false.” But it could include statements which are technically correct (such as based on official government data) but are so taken out of context as to be very misleading. The line between Two and Three can be bit fuzzy and we do not award half-Pinocchios. So we strive to explain the factors that tipped us toward a Three.

[brer cat]

42. Excellent post, lunamagica.

K&R

[lunamagica]

47. Thanks! When I saw it, I just had to bring it here

[DemonGoddess]

43. thank you for the post lunamagica!

[lunamagica]

48. Thanks!

[leftofcool]

44. Someone has a very long nose and it isn't Hillary

[lunamagica]

55. Three Pinocchios long!

[Gothmog]

49. Great post with great facts

Great job of putting a ton of facts together.

[LAS14]

53. Thanks for all the pesky facts!!!!

[lunamagica]

56. Nothing worse than pesky facts getting in the way of a good lie!

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2016, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

[azmom]

57. Wall Street is her real owner. I'll give

You that much.

[redstateblues]

58. Bernie's internals must not be good. His desperation has caused him to step up his lying.

[azmom]

60. You are quite mistaken. You also should not accuse

My candidate of lying when your candidate has a long sordid and well documented record of lying and corruption. She is the queen of misleading and lying to the American public.

[redstateblues]

66. I'm still waiting for proof of quid pro quo.

the corruption smear is just a meme on DU-It's been repeated without proof so many time it's hard to knock them all down. Bernie just got 3 Pinochios- his nose is getting longer with every lie

[azmom]

68. Is this what you are looking for:

Fracking company and gas industry trade association lobbyists have also contributed to Clinton’s campaign, including Former Rep. Martin Frost (D-TX), who lobbied for the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, and Martin Durbin of the American Natural Gas Association (now merged and part of the American Petroleum Institute – API), the nephew of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). Another donor is Elizabeth Gore, a lobbyist for WPX energy (fracking). A lobbyist for FTI Consulting, creator of an industry front group called Energy In Depth, also contributed to Clinton;s campaign. Although Clinton has said she would require FERC to consider climate change before granting any new gas pipeline permits, she recently told activists she would not ban fracking as president, and has a pro-fracking track record which has been well-documented by numerous groups, including pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record.

[AgerolanAmerican]

59. You don't get bigger "Big Oil" than Saudi Arabia

and anyone who doesn't think that HRC is in the Saudis' pocket must have been born yesterday

[azmom]

61. They are big donors to the Clinton slush fund.

David Sirota and Andrew Perez have previously reported for the International Business Times that Clinton’s State Department was heavily involved in approving weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. As weapons transfers were being approved, both the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Boeing made donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Washington Post revealed that a Boeing lobbyist helped with fundraising in the early stages of Hillary Clinton’s current presidential campaign.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/

[Lucinda]

62. TY!

[Kip Humphrey]

63. Yeah, all that fracking talk was just a bunch of methane... poof and its gone... only it smells like

the Earth farted.

[SHRED]

64. So what's this then??

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas.
—Mariah Blake | September/October 2014 Issue

~excerpt~

Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves.


http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

[baldguy]

65. Why have Senators and Representitive vote on stuff that'll actually make a difference?

When you can paint signs, have ill-attended marches, and have annoying "direct action" protests which inconvenience the people you're trying to win over?

[grntuscarora]

67. Oh, please.

I just spoke with an Marcellus Shale worker today (not a comcast owned talking head) who laughed out loud at the idea that she's not in their pocket.

Rachel Maddow works for Comcast, Comcast works for Shillary.

[HumanityExperiment]

69. Yeah sure...

HRC is republican light and liberals / progressives know this... so her pushing fracking as SoS goes against those liberal / progressive ideals

She's is bought and paid for fossil fuel shill and this election cycle and her recent outburst just further validates that fact

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2016/march/pavillion-fracking-water-032916.html

[Gothmog]

71. Sanders wants an apology for being caught in a lie

[Avalux]

72. Rachel "Hillary may I kiss your ring" Maddow is quite clever.

But - obfuscation is obfuscation no matter how you slice it. We all know how campaign finance laws work. We also know how PACs work.

If anyone's dog isn't hunting, it's Hillary's.

[oasis]

73. Big K and R