October, 06 2011, 09:22am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Brendan DeMelle, 206-295-4399, brendan@desmogblog.com
Carroll Muffett, 202-425-2934, cmuffett@ciel.org
Sarah Burt, 510-599-8573, sburt@earthjustice.org
Nick Berning, 202-222-0748, nberning@foe.org
Â
Pipeline Influence Investigation Expands to Include Concerns About Broader Web of Lobbyists
Groups amend FOIA request to include more Keystone XL lobbyists with Clinton ties
WASHINGTON
The lobbying and cronyism scandal centered on the State Department's review of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline intensified today after researchers at the DeSmogBlog found that a broad array of additional pipeline lobbyists have close ties to Secretary of State Clinton.
As a result, the Freedom of Information Act request that led to the publication of emails between State Department officials and TransCanada lobbyist Paul Elliott will be amended to include a request for interactions with the additional lobbyists, according to the public interest groups that filed the initial FOIA request.
"The tar sands industry's use of former Clinton associates to lobby on the controversial project extends beyond Mr. Elliott," DeSmogBlog Executive Director Brendan DeMelle wrote in a memodescribing the findings. "Lobbyists with strong ties to Secretary Clinton are spread out over three firms, including one that was the largest single source of funds of any corporate entity to Clinton's 2008 presidential run."
According to Friends of the Earth, the Center for International Environmental Law and Corporate Ethics International -- the groups that, represented by Earthjustice, filed the initial FOIA request -- the DeSmogBlog findings led to the decision to expand that request. The groups are askingthe State Department to release all documents pertaining to interactions between the department and employees of lobbying firms McKenna Long & Aldridge, Bryan Cave LLP and DLA PIPER, as well as TransCanada. The original FOIA request focused narrowly on interactions with Elliott, TransCanada's lead Washington, D.C. lobbyist who was formerly a high-ranking Hillary Clinton campaign aide.
"Our Freedom of Information Act request led to the release of emails that provide troubling evidence of pro-pipeline bias at the State Department," said Center for International Environmental Law President and CEO Carroll Muffett. "The State Department's obstructionist tactics and lack of transparency in response to our first request must not be repeated. It should immediately release documents that pertain to the amended request."
One of the lobbyists named on the FOIA, Maryscott "Scotty" Greenwood, has a reputation for being able to get Secretary of State Clinton on the phone. Two of the lobbyists, Gordon Giffin with McKenna, Long & Aldridge and James Blanchard with DLA PIPER, were fundraising bundlers for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. DLA PIPER was also the largest single corporate source of employee and PAC contributions to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The campaign connections extend to President Obama. Jeff Berman, a lobbyist listed on Bryan Cave's Keystone XL lobbying account, was director of delegate selection in Obama's primary campaign and was called the "unsung hero" of his victory.
"The State Department has a legal obligation to make its communications with these lobbyists public," said Earthjustice staff attorney Sarah Burt. "And we intend to do what we can to ensure the law is followed."
"By now it is clear that oil industry influence peddlers rather than scientific facts and public input are driving the State Department," said Damon Moglen, climate and energy director at Friends of the Earth. "While we still have more to learn about the extent of lobbyist influence, it is already clear that President Obama cannot afford to trust the State Department to make the pipeline decision."
The DeSmogBlog research can be found at https://www.desmogblog.com/hillary-clinton-keystone-xl-lobbyists.
The amended FOIA request being filed today is available at https://www.foe.org/sites/default/files/AmendedFOIArequest.pdf.
The emails pertaining to the initial FOIA request that have been released thus far and more information on the growing scandal can be found at www.foe.org.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
After First Round of Voting, Will France's Centrists Drop Out to Stop the Fascists?
Leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon said his party's third-place candidates would withdraw from three-way runoffs to help prevent the far-right from seizing power.
Jul 01, 2024
Leaders of France's left-of-center parties vowed Sunday to withdraw their third-place candidates from runoff races in an effort to prevent Marine Le Pen's fascist National Rally from securing an absolute majority in the country's Parliament.
But will centrist candidates follow suit?
That question became critical following the first round of voting in snap parliamentary elections called by French President Emmanuel Macron last month after his party suffered a stinging defeat in European elections. Macron's decision appears to have backfired in a major way.
Le Pen's viciously xenophobic Rassemblement National (RN) prevailed in round one on Sunday, winning 33.2% of the vote, while the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP)—an alliance of left-of-center parties formed ahead of the snap elections to counter the far-right—came in second at 28%. Macron's centrist Ensemble coalition landed in third with 22.4% of the vote.
The decisive second round will be held on July 7, and efforts to stop Le Pen's party from seizing outright control of the National Assembly likely hinge on electoral cooperation between the center and the left. The Financial Timescalculated that the first round of voting "produced more than 300 three-way runoffs... an unprecedented number, although the final figure will depend on how many candidates drop out."
In races qualifying for runoffs, according to FT, Macron's Ensemble alliance had 95 third-place candidates after round one while the left-of-center NFP had 129.
Speaking to supporters Sunday, leftist La France Insoumise (LFI) leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon said his party would withdraw candidates from races in which they placed third and the far-right NR was in the lead—a vow that the heads of other left-wing parties echoed.
"Our instructions are simple, direct, and clear: not one vote, not one more seat for the RN," said Mélenchon.
"The question that should be asked of every Macronist in the next couple days: Does this line extend to La France Insoumise or not? Right now, it's not clear."
The centrists were much less direct about their intentions.
French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, who acknowledged the far-right is "at the gates of power," said the centrist alliance would withdraw candidates from runoffs if their presence would hinder "another candidate—who, like us—defends the values of the Republic," without specifically saying whether he includes leftist LFI candidates in that category.
"The question that should be asked of every Macronist in the next couple days: Does this line extend to La France Insoumise or not? Right now, it's not clear," France-based journalist Cole Stangler wrote Sunday.
Macron similarly urged voters to back candidates who are "clearly republican and democratic." But as The Washington Postobserved, the French president "has at times portrayed the far-left as equally dangerous as the far-right," raising concerns that centrists could allow the far-right to win close races by splitting votes in three-way runoffs that include candidates from Mélenchon's LFI.
As Reutersreported, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire "ruled out calling on voters to choose an LFI candidate" in a radio interview—a position that one senior Greens member denounced as "cowardly and privileged."
One government minister, Roland Lescure, did explicitly urge "all voters to block the extreme right without hesitation by voting for the best-placed alternative candidate," even if it's an LFI candidate.
"The real danger for France today is an absolute majority National Rally," said Lescure. "And we must do everything to prevent it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unprecedented' and 'Very Dangerous,' Hurricane Beryl Explodes Into Category 4 Storm
"The climate crisis is here. This is an emergency. Politicians need to start acting like it."
Jun 30, 2024
Meteorologists, climate campaigners, and extreme weather experts expressed shock and horror Sunday as Hurricane Beryl exploded into an "extremely dangerous" Category 4 storm as it headed into the warm waters of the southern Caribbean with a level of intensification characterized as unprecedented.
The National Hurricane Center on Sunday morning called it a "very dangerous situation" due to "potentially catastrophic hurricane-force winds, a life-threatening storm surge, and damaging waves" for the numerous mainland and island nations in Beryl's path.
According to the NHC, the Windward Islands of St. Vincent, the Grenadines, and Granada will be the first at highest risk from the storm as well as St. Lucia and Barbados. People on those islands and elsewhere in the region were told that all preparations for the storm "should be rushed to completion" without delay.
Weather Undergroundreports that subsequent locations that may face Beryl's wrath later this week could be Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, Belize and Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, though noted "there's uncertainty in that exact track" of the hurricane as detailed in the following graphic:
Possible storm tracks for Hurricane Beryl. (Source: Weather Underground / wunderground.com)
Citing records going back to 1851, the Washington Postreported Sunday that there "is no precedent for a storm to intensify this quickly, nor reach this strength, in this part of the ocean during the month of June."
Eric Blake, a hurricane expert, said that Beryl on Sunday was "rewriting the history books in all the wrong ways," as he urged people in its path to "be very safe and take this hurricane seriously" as "very few will have experienced a hurricane this strong" on those islands.
"This is unreal," said Nahel Belgherze, a journalist focused on extreme weather. "Hurricane Beryl continues to defy all known logic, now becoming the first June Category 4 hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic Basin. I can't even stress enough just how completely absurd that storm is."
"The climate crisis is here," said the Sunrise Movement in a social media post showing the extreme power and historic nature of Hurricane Beryl. "This is an emergency. Politicians need to start acting like it."
The group took the opportunity to re-share its petition calling on President Joe Biden to "declare a climate emergency" as a way to unlock federal funds and escalate the government's response to the crisis of fossil fuels that are the main driving of surging global temperatures.
In May, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted that the 2024 hurricane season—which officially runs from June 1 to the end of November—would be "extraordinary" and "above-normal," largely due to rising ocean temperatures attributable to human-caused global warming couple with La Niña conditions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Long Knives Out': Calls Grow for Biden to Step Aside After Debate Disaster
A new post-debate poll out Sunday shows that 72% of registered U.S. voters think Biden does not have 'mental and cognitive health' to be president.
Jun 30, 2024
What would be the reaction of voters?
In the approximately 60 hours since Thursday night's stunningly bad debate performance by President Joe Biden, the number of individuals and institutions calling for the incumbent to step aside so that another Democratic Party candidate can be chosen to prevent Donald Trump from ever again stepping into the White House has only grown.
From the elite media offices of The New Yorker and the New York Times to a cacophony of political observers from across the ideological spectrum that makes up the Democratic coalition, a unified message has been clear: the President of the United States has shown he is unfit to challenge Trump and the stakes are simply too high to risk defeat.
"This isn't a progressive or centrist or conservative thing," said Aaron Regunberg, a lawyer and progressive organizer, said in a social media post Sunday morning. "There's no ideological valence to it. We simply cannot afford to lose this election to Trump, which means President Biden must step down as nominee and pass the torch to a new generation of leaders."
"No Democrat—literally no Democrat—is saying 'Oh, I'm with Trump now.' We're saying we have better Democratic options to beat Trump, and beating Trump is absolutely essential."
And a new CBS/YouGov poll out Sunday shows that 72% of registered voters believe Biden does not have the "mental and cognitive health to serve as president," compared to 49% who said the same about Trump. That 72% figure for Biden represents a 12-point jump among voters compared to when the same question was asked on June 9.
The New York Times Editorial Board—an otherwise staunch ally of the liberal establishment that has backed Biden—made a splash Saturday by arguing prominently on its pages, under the unmistakable headline "To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race," that the president would be doing the nation a service by bowing out. According to the board:
As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.
If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.
Yanis Varoufakis, former finance minister for Greece and co-founder of Progressive International, said you know "the long knives are truly out" when the Times has slew of weekend opinion essays targeting the Democratic president.
Meanwhile, The New Yorker magazine's editor David Remnick, another oracle of the liberal media, carved a similar path as he described a political "tide roaring at Biden's feet" and a presidential figure who looks "increasingly unsteady" to the voting public.
"It is not just the political class or the commentariat who were unnerved by the debate," wrote Remnick in his Saturday column. "Most people with eyes to see were unnerved. At this point, for the Biden's to insist on defying biology, to think that a decent performance at one rally or speech can offset the indelible images of Thursday night, is folly."
With the president and First Lady Jill Biden at Camp David for the remainder of the weekend—and reports swirling of a " frenzied" damage-control effort by his staff and internal family consultations underway to "discuss the future of his re-election campaign" while gathered at the retreat complex—progressive political observers said that powerful members of the Democratic Party establishment—including elected leaders, donors, and top DNC officials—can only come to one conclusion after Thursday's debate.
"Quite apart from the existential threat of Trump becoming the next president and ending American democracy, there is pure self-interest," arguedThe American Prospect's Robert Kuttner on Friday. "The futures of every other Democrat up for re-election are on the line." He continued:
With Biden heading the ticket, Democrats will likely lose the House, Senate, state legislatures and governorships, and down-ballot races all the way to school board, as well as the presidency. Chuck Schumer cares more about losing his post as majority leader than he cares about the awkwardness of having to tell his president he needs to go. And to quote Shakespeare, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly."
Ironies abound. This early debate was the Biden camp's idea. It's evidence of the cluelessness of Biden's inner circle about the president's weakness as a candidate that they thought Biden would triumph. They gloated that they prevailed on the terms—no audience, no on-mic cross talk—and still their man got clobbered.
Biden should have won overwhelmingly—on the issues, on Trump’s lying, and on his own coherence compared to Trump’s. Biden’s policies have been superb and consistent. Trump’s policies, both as president and as future president, are a contradictory medley of disasters.
But from the moment he shuffled onto the set, Biden obviously wasn’t up to it.
In the assessment of other progressives—many of whom have argued for well over a year that Biden was a weak candidate and should be challenged for the nomination—Democratic elites have now caught up to what should have been self-evident.
In a Sunday op-ed at Common Dreams, Sam Rosenthal of the leftist advocacy group RootsAction, which mobilized a "Step Aside Joe" campaign last year in hopes of convincing the president to not seek re-election, argues that the "tide could turn" on Biden in the days ahead if "a few brave elected officials in prominent positions were to speak out" against the president.
"It is not an exaggeration to say that replacing Joe Biden at the top of the ticket is critical to saving our very imperfect democracy," writes Rosenthal. "This is an opportunity for activists and voters to make their voices heard, but an effort needs to take hold quickly, and with urgency, if we want to avoid the coming catastrophe."
In a Sunday newsletter, political journalist Chris Cillizza published in full an email he received from a veteran Democratic political operative who agreed to have his note published so long as he was not named. The email, in part, read:
I just don't understand what in the hell is going on.
As a career Democratic operative who never lived in DC, I can't underscore how different things are outside the bubble. People I talk with who aren't political hacks and just happen to be Democrats or ‘never Trump’ types are mortified and scared after the debate.
My phone hasn't stopped.
These aren't people who are active on Twitter or dedicate their social media feeds to politics, they are just normal folk. They don't understand why the Democratic Party is doing this.
They are horrified and perplexed and absolutely recognize they are being gaslighted...
Albeit anecdotal, Cillizza said the email represents, "a telling sign that all is not well in the Democratic party. And that there are a LOT of worried people out there."
Despite serious questions about who should or would be chosen as the replacement Democrat (including the process by which that decision is made), the widespread anxiety about allowing Trump to march back into the White House due to the Democrats' failure to field a strong and reliable candidate could not be shaken by the Biden's campaign concerted efforts to circle the wagons over the weekend and their appeals for voters (not to mention large donors) to stay calm."We need to have as much discipline as emotion," one unnamed senior Democratic official toldNBC News on Saturday. "It's not politically smart for Biden to step down."
Meanwhile—offering a mirrored counterpoint and not to be overshadowed by the NYT's call for Biden to relinquish the Democratic nomination—the Philadelphia Inquirer on Saturday published an editorial of its own, titled "To serve his country, Donald Trump should leave the race," which acknowledged that even as Biden faltered seriously on Thursday night, those arguing the sitting president should be the one to bow out have it backward.
"Yes, Biden had a horrible night," reads the editorial. "He’s 81 and not as sharp as he used to be. But Biden on his worst day remains lightyears better than Trump on his best."
But progressive pushback to such sentiments ranged from unconvinced to outraged.
"I find the 'Joe had a bad debate but he's still much better than Trump' line so offensive," said Regunberg. "No Democrat—literally no Democrat—is saying 'Oh, I'm with Trump now.' We're saying we have better Democratic options to beat Trump, and beating Trump is absolutely essential."
"If Biden refuses to step aside it will not be an act of high principal or strong character," said journalist and Slate columnist Zachary Carter. "He did not just have a bad night. He is not fit for the job and staying in the race would be the worst kind of vanity and betrayal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular