MotherJones: "How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World"

[NYC_SKP]

Tip of the iceberg, this is an example of why we need to aim higher.

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.

~snippet~

The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. 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://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

[Jester Messiah]

1. It's pretty clear who she's working for.

And it's pretty clear that it isn't us.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Department of State as an Extension of the US Chamber of Commerce.

How she got that gig I'll never understand.
To listen to her empty rhetoric, she would have been a better Health and Human Services head.

[truebluegreen]

4. Isn't it odd that President Obama differentiated himself from her

in the campaign on largely foreign policy grounds...and then appointed her Secretary of State.

[Exilednight]

8. That was one of my biggest complaints after the election. There were many roles she

Could have filled, but SoS seemed kind of off-base.

In a lot of ways, I think she pulled him to the right. I, also, believe that it was by design that he turned Afghanistan and Iraq over to Biden - it seemed like he didn't trust her.

Ironically, Kerry is executing Obama's foreign policy strategy that was put forth during the primary and having tremendous success.

[840high]

53. He almost had to give her a plum position.

[truebluegreen]

102. True. But why that one? nt

[Jester Messiah]

5. That's why you don't listen to the rhetoric.

Actions speak louder than words. In the same vein, money talks and bullshit walks. So, we look at what she does/has done, and we look at where she gets her money. The picture it paints is not that of a leftist activist.

[jwirr]

33. And I actually think she would have done a good job at HHS.

[NYC_SKP]

37. Me, too.

I do believe her compassion for people, but I fear that her hunger for and love of power eclipses that.

[MBS]

79. It is a legitimate role of the State Dept.

to promote American business.
But this is over the top (not to mention environmentally irresponsible):It seemed that they basically rammed fracking down the Bulgarians' throats. And I was sorry to read that the Bulgarians (who initially fiercely opposed tracking) seem to have caved to pressure.

I find HRC's approach to the fracking issue (and the Clinton State Dept report on Keystone XL) troubling.

[NYC_SKP]

82. True, if the businesses are truly American and if balanced against other values, concerns.

All or most of our agencies were created to balance citizen's interests against business's interests:

The USPTO (patents), the FDA, the FCC, USDA, etc.: Safety and protections but also promotion of businesses.

This seems to have shifted lately in each of the agencies, and with Chevron and many other energy industries, the benefactors of increased business are rarely US citizens, so it bears scrutiny.

[MBS]

118. yup, I know what you mean.

I'm guessing this trend started in earnest with Reagan, and got markedly worse with W (for instance, Cheney consulting with energy-industry folks, and basically having them write energy policy) . Uggh.

[closeupready]

7. Yep, and I'm not voting for her.

Period.

[truebluegreen]

3. For me this trumps any concerns she may express about climate change

or caring about people / women / children...

Off to the greatest page with you.

[TheNutcracker]

76. Exactly...

[marmar]

6. K/R

[Thespian2]

9. Clinton, Hillary

Queen of Goldman Sachs...Guru of Fracking the shit out of the entire world...

[Chef Eric]

10. Oh, I'm SURE this was largely "...part of a push to fight climate change."

How magnanimous of Hillary and the energy companies.

[MaggieD]

22. Is your home off the grid?

[DhhD]

11. What is Clinton's Energy Policy Now? What would she bring to Congress in 2017?

Will she have in mind working with Congress, if you can't beat them, join them? That reminds me of some of Obama's legacy, not Third Way but Either Way.

[NYC_SKP]

15. According to her very own Super PAC, she's like the goddess of the environment, but look closer.

The cherry-picked examples of statements and votes portray a progressive pro-environment candidate.

The missing data, votes, and actions on her part betray her pro-business screw-the-environment soul.

From her Super PAC's (ew, just threw up in my mouth at that) page on her pro-fossil fuel moves as SOS: Her OWN page!!!

The state department two years ago, under Hillary Clinton, created this bureau of energy resources which was aimed specifically at figuring out how to leverage this huge boom in U.S. natural gas as a diplomatic weapon. And already, this boom in U.S. natural gas, even though it’s not being exported to Europe, has loosened up a lot of supply around the rest of the world.

The State Department, under Hillary Rodham Clinton, set up the Bureau of Energy Resources to do just that; it has, for example, helped European nations reduce their dependence on Russian gas by, among other things, buying more gas from Africa.”

U.S. diplomatic efforts in Iraq helped unlock nearly a million additional barrels of oil a day, she said,

Drill Baby Drill!

[MaggieD]

24. Are you off the grid?

[NYC_SKP]

28. No, better than off the grid, I produce far more (solar) energy than I consume.

And that calculation includes the energy footprint of my food and water and material goods.

I also drive a Chevrolet Volt that only uses gasoline on trips far out of town.

How about you?

[MaggieD]

32. How much did those solar panels cost?

And what do you suggest for people where solar is not a viable option? The reality is that most people that bitch about this stuff are not off the grid. Either becuase they can't afford the retro fit or it's not a viable option where they live.

Ever seen that pic of a bunch of environmentalists in their petro plastic kayaks protesting oil companies? I have. It's a funny picture and highlights the hypocrisy.

And yes, I own one of the first hybrid cars made. Got a nice tax credit too. Thanks to Democrats. My next car will be fully electric.

[NYC_SKP]

36. Your sidebar is a non sequitur; a separate argument.

Not for you but for other readers, I'll explain.

This pro-Chevron business was on other continents, it is their business not ours.

She worked for Chevron and against the people's will:

According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium.

Uh Oh, look what you've done. While looking for the damage she did in Hungary I came across another article fit to become it's own OP:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002

gotta run...

[MaggieD]

49. No it's not

Your argument is the typical argument of the radical left's elitists.

[Android3.14]

56. But no actual response of substance?

Thought not.

Talk about "typical"

[NYC_SKP]

59. What the hell are you talking about? You asked a question, I gave you answers.

WTH do you want?

She promoted natural gas, and not generally but with specific providers (Chevron) against the will of at least some of the people (Romanians) and the government there.

And then you slide off into some "are you off the grid" distraction....

And not just to me but to other members in this thread.

Asking if people are off the grid is not a skillful argument or an effective rebuttal.

[MaggieD]

67. LOL - your answer was "let's not talk about that"

[polly7]

78. No, my answer was - you're hilarious (but sad). nt.

[MaggieD]

80. I wasn't responding to you....

[polly7]

86. Oh well, my post still stands. nt.

[Android3.14]

96. Not you, NYC_SKP

I was responding to MaggieD.

Or perhaps you were thinking you were responding to her post.

[L0oniX]

12. Silly. That was way back in 2012. Why dredge up the past. I'm sure she has changed since then.

[Ford_Prefect]

13. Was that the sound of one shoe dropping?

[JEB]

14. Give fracking another chance.

New campaign slogan?

[hedda_foil]

116. What she is saying: give fracking a chance

I feel a song coming on. Oh oh.....

[PatrickforO]

16. This doesn't surprise me. Nor does the endorsement of Clinton by Nancy Reagan.

[Agschmid]

17. Except that isn't true...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/bloomberg-falls-for-fake-nancy-reagan-report-205356.html

Good lord, I hate having to defend her.

[rhett o rick]

18. Looks like we have another problem with sources. Do you trust politico? nm

[Agschmid]

20. Well at least they source shit.

Unlike the other one.

People are becoming blind in this primary, use critical thinking, ask the right questions. Don't jump to conclusions.

[DhhD]

25. Must she be a champion of Either Way: Solar? She would not need defending if she is moving away

from dirty energy. Its like moving back to rice is grown by free sunshine and clean water, rice should be removed as a commodity. Will she learn from mistakes and move on to what is right for we the people of the United States which has everything to do with We the people of the World. A foundation for We the people of the World, is in her name. Clinton needs to come clean by speaking up. Looking forward to hearing her out.

[Agschmid]

27. Huh?

[PatrickforO]

119. Boy, and here I was believing it. You'd think Bloomberg would be OK

[Agschmid]

120. They issued a retraction.

[NYC_SKP]

29. Hoax. Here's a link:

http://nationalreport.net/nancy-reagan-want-hillary-win/

[LovingA2andMI]

47. National Report....

Generally is looked at as a Satire Site. #FYI

[workinclasszero]

90. Really?

That was a fake story



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026729906

[raindaddy]

19. We're at a time where we desperately need someone who will stand up to....

the fossil fuel industry and the too big too fail banks... Let's hope that most Democrats can at least agree on that.

The question we need to ask ourselves is, is Hillary Clinton that person? What the question is not is, is she popular enough or connected enough money to win the election?

I think most people know the answer to the first question...

[MaggieD]

23. Are you off the grid?

[LovingA2andMI]

51. What difference does that make?

So one cannot be on the Grid but care about the environment? One cannot be on the Grid but have hopes to be Off the Grid someday? One cannot desire Solar Panels but cannot afford them due to the 1% (or more like the top 15% with Hill and Bill are a part of) consistent schemes to suppress wages to increase their wealth?

Sorry, but this question is stupid and frankly presents a fallacy of the false alternative where one cannot care about the environment or fracking unless they are "Off the Grid".

[raindaddy]

57. Are you suggesting fracking is a necessity?

Beyond the groundwater contamination caused by fracking and the earthquake potential which is an abomination especially here in CA the only reason for it's existence is more money for the fossil fuel companies....

If you're actually being serious and haven't read about the advances in advancement in solar panel technology I suggest you do a little research..

[MaggieD]

60. I'm saying it's better than oil and coal

And I think it is elitist to suggest we can all afford solar. Especially folks in the countries she has promoted fracking as preferable to oil and coal, and dependence on Russia who uses it as a political tool against their neighbors.

[polly7]

63. The west has never used resources as weapons?

Where have you been? There are millions dead, maimed, homeless because the west wanted control of 'their' resources. Seriously, your 'Russia scare' crap is getting old.

And why is anyone from the west advising anyone else on what resources to use? Fracking destroys the water supply of many around it, we all know that - water is precious now in case you haven't noticed. The next wars will be fought over it. What sense does it make at all to choose something that will destroy it, versus clean energy - and why wouldn't anyone who cares about actual human beings advocate for safe, clean energy?

[MaggieD]

65. That's elitist

Who is going to pay for all these solar panels in these small countries? I can tell you it would be a lot more achievable if they weren't so dependent on Russia for their energy.

So many of the radical left live in this pollyanna world of utopia that just does not exist. And worse yet, so many sit on the sidelines and scream at people trying to find real world solutions to real world problems.

It's sad.

[polly7]

66. You're hilarious (but sad). nt.

[NYC_SKP]

74. I believe a new DU record has been set...

For the number of times and number of ways a DU member has tried to change the subject.

Natural Gas to get them of Petroleum!

Well do you live off the Grid?

Bulgaria, Putin!!!

Good grief.....

[progree]

115. Part of this thread is sounding like the Druggie Limpaugh show

"radical left elitists". WOW! I suppose it could be worse -- "them thar radic libs"? (Or libtards?) At least we haven't heard "environmentalist wacko" yet.

(Don't get caught in a plastic kayak, FFS. If you are concerned about the environment, you must live like a monk, owning only a loin cloth I guess, otherwise you are a radic lib elitist hypocrit)

No, I haven't listened to El Rushbo since the early 90's, but sometimes I hear sound bites of his on progressive talk radio.

[raindaddy]

92. Sorry but there's nothing elitist about shifting our focus from fossil fuel to solar...

If we stopped subsidizing oil, coal and gas we could be moving towards a future where everyone would benefit from cheap and clean solar energy...Solar panels are becoming cheaper everyday along with new developments in storage batteries..

You and your candidate have it backwards. It's elitist to continue to develop policies that throw money at an industry that's not only polluting the environment and is simply not sustainable just because they support your campaign...

Thanks for making my point. Hillary Clinton has neither the guts or the foresight to stand up to the fossil fuel industry..

[MaggieD]

93. This isn't about US

The Obama administration has done an excellent job of promoting renewable energy in the U.S.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/17/obama-administration-calls-for-more-renewable-energy-tighter-pollution-controls-on-taxpayer-owned-lands/

This is about smaller countries that are too beholden to Russia for energy, and realistic ways for them to produce more of their own energy and also reduce green house gasses.

[raindaddy]

95. Why would Hillary promote fracking anywhere?

especially after the devastating impact it's had in the US?

The answer is simple MONEY....

[MaggieD]

61. When will you be visiting those nations....

And telling them pie in the sky BS that they should all buy solar panels?

I think the biggest thing you folks have against Hillary is that she lives in the REAL WORLD and offers real world solutions.

[raindaddy]

94. When will you vist California?

and experienced first hand the damage that fracking does to the environment.

Update 02/11/15: The problems with California's underground injection control program are far worse than originally reported. It has now been revealed that California regulators with DOGGR permitted hundreds of wastewater injection wells and thousands more wells injecting fluids for “enhanced oil recovery” into aquifers protected under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/07/central-california-aquifers-contaminated-billions-gallons-fracking-wastewater

This is criminal especially in a state that provides so much produce for the rest of the nation.. Makes me wonder how any democrat could be so uninformed to support a candidate that's at best so easily swayed by the money this industry pours into campaign coffers and at worst negligent!

[MaggieD]

97. I visit CA pretty regularly...

But let's get back to the point. Has HRC advocated fracking in the US? Or simply has a bridge to energy independence for countries under the thumb of Russia for energy?

The REALITY is that there is no perfect solution. Gas is better than oil and coal. Solar and wind is better than gas, but still costly to implement, and not suitable in some areas. But there is no magic wand we can wave across the world.

[raindaddy]

98. Cheaper for who??? You can't even put a price on the damage fracking has done in CA

In July, California state regulators, Department of Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), shut down eleven fracking wastewater injection wells over concerns that what precious water the severely drought-stricken state has left is being contaminated with toxins and carcinogens; particularly in highly productive agricultural areas. According to its due diligence, the agency the oil industry and Republicans hate above all others, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), promptly ordered a report within 60 days to determine if the oil industry did indeed poison what little water California has left and what extent, if any, the damage might have on the agriculture industry and drinking water supply.

This past week, with little to no mention in the conservative media, the California State water Resources Board issued a report to the EPA confirming that yes, at least nine of the eleven fracking sites were deliberately dumping poisoned waste water directly into central California aquifers. The waste water is laden with extremely hazardous toxins and carcinogenic chemicals used in fracking and the aquifers the industry destroyed are protected by both state laws as well as the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Of course, both Republicans and the oil industry (read Koch brothers) can not countenance either California’s environmental protections or the Safe Drinking Water Act as evidenced by a campaign pledge by an incumbent Republican representative, Jeff Denham, promising an all-out federal drive to abolish California’s water regulations permanently.

According to the damning report, over 3 billion gallons of poisoned waste-water was illegally injected directly into central California aquifers, and that water samples collected at water supply wells tested in the proximity of the fracking injection sites all had extremely high levels of known carcinogenic chemicals such as arsenic. Arsenic, besides being a cancer-causing agent, also weakens the human immune system. The arsenic is combined with a toxin used in rat poison, thallium, that was found in water supplies in and around the fracking injection sites. The water wells are useless as a safe drinking-water resource as well as worthless for the state’s very substantial agricultural industry.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/11/report-confirms-fracking-poisoning-californias-dwindling-aquifers.html

[MaggieD]

99. What does that have to do with Clinton??

[polly7]

100. She's advocating the same for other countries - all to benefit the owners of these corporations.

It's not difficult to understand.

Oh, and the Russians Are Coming!!!! And they're still 10 feet tall!

[raindaddy]

101. Isn't it obvious?

She promoting a process that has proven itself to be extremely detrimental to the welfare of humans and the environment...

[MaggieD]

103. Yet less detrimental than current practices...

In small European countries under Russia's thumb. And it has nothing to do with CA.

[polly7]

104. Oh bullshit.

Water is water everywhere. Fracking does exactly the same damage wherever it happens. But it's ok for others, right?

[raindaddy]

107. Right, who cares about polluting the water in Eastern Europe?

The gas companies profit, Hillary's campaign profits and who cares if a bunch of people in Eastern Europe gets cancer ten years down the road?

Will she campaign on her support of fracking. I'm sure California Democrats would love to hear it...

[MaggieD]

108. Well maybe you can lend....

Obama, HRC, and Jerry Brown your magic wand and they can solve the problems that way.

[raindaddy]

109. You're the one that's going to need the magic wand

if you're going to continue defending Hillary Clinton using her position of power to promote fracking..

[MaggieD]

111. I live in reality land....

Where fracking is a reasonable bridge to reducing green house gases and reducing European reliance on Russian oil and gas.

Is your house solar powered? Or do you have a wind farm on your property? If so, how much did it cost?

[raindaddy]

112. Hopefully you haven't lived in an area where the wells have been destroyed by frackers

polluting them.. And you probably wouldn't know if you did because data about violations of safety and pollution rules have been hidden from residents..
That's beginning to change though...
From 2009 to 2013 in Pennsylvania alone, the NRDC found that 68 large companies were responsible for

3,978 violations of safety and pollution rules.

Good crowd Hillary hangs out with!

[raindaddy]

113. If one added up the cost of all the damage caused by fracking it's no longer a cheap

way to provide energy..
Since Hillary just found her populist self, wondering if she'll make forcing the frackers to pay for the damage they've caused a top priority?
Or will it simply be passed on to the public?

[polly7]

110. Those countries can solve their own problems without outside 'help' (that always comes with

a price tag - and you know it). Since when are sovereign nations now thought of being too stupid to take care of themselves, and isn't it strange that the only ones the west 'helps' are those either with resources or those who can be used politically against one of those 'enemies' - Russia - you're so afraid of?

I was pissed that Hillary Clinton was receiving half a million dollars up here from city to city speaking of 'terror!!!!!'. We're quite able to tell ourselves what causes to be involved in.

But Harper does need all the help he can get before October, I guess.

[MaggieD]

21. For good reason....

"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."

http://grist.org/climate-energy/where-does-hillary-clinton-stand-on-fracking/

[NYC_SKP]

31. You're suggesting that fracking fights climate change. Did you bother to read your own link???

From YOUR link:

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. …

Clinton … sent a cable to US diplomats asking them to collect information on the potential for fracking in their host countries. These efforts eventually gave rise to the Global Shale Gas Initiative, which aimed to help other nations develop their shale potential. Clinton promised it would do so “in a way that is as environmentally respectful as possible.” But environmental groups were barely consulted, while industry played a crucial role. …

In late 2011, Clinton … promised to instruct US embassies around the globe to step up their work on energy issues and “pursue more outreach to private-sector energy” firms, some of which had generously supported both her and President Obama’s political campaigns.

And it links to another article that crossposts the MJ article in my own OP:

http://grist.org/business-technology/how-hillary-clintons-state-department-sold-fracking-to-the-world/

[MaggieD]

35. Are you suggesting gas isn't preferable to oil?

And that it wouldn't be better if countries weren't reliant on Russia for oil?

[NYC_SKP]

39. Oil??? Oil is not used widely to generate electricity. You really need to do some research.

Nothing more embarrassing than arguing with an expert about something you know next to nothing about.

Romania graphic, right out of my pocket:



NG is less filthy than coal, but the smart thing to transition toward is renewables and storage, not natural gas.

Hillary was doing favors for her Chevron friends.

It is so obvious.

[MaggieD]

43. Let's inject some reality, shall we?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/04/07/heres-where-russia-shipped-oil-last-year-as-ukraine-europe-diversifies/

[polly7]

48. So?

What business is it of yours or anyone in the U.S. or the west, period, where Russia or anyone else, ships anything?

[NYC_SKP]

68. Seriously. Where Russia ships oil has zilch to do with generation of electricity in Romania.

That member has no skilz in the world of energy.

One of the biggest faux pas we see in energy arguments is the misconception that oil is used to generate much of our electricity.

Now if we were in Hawaii there would be an argument, but Romania is about coal and hydro for generation, and might do well to deploy more conservation and efficiency and some wind and solar where practical.

Hillary promoted fracking specifically for Chevron.

End of discussion.

[polly7]

69. Thank you, I'm learning a lot from your posts.

[MaggieD]

70. What happened to Bulgaria?

You don't want to talk about Bulgaria any more? LOL!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/world/europe/how-putin-forged-a-pipeline-deal-that-derailed-.html?_r=0

[polly7]

40. LOL. That damned Russia again. nt.

[MaggieD]

81. Russia is in fact a bad actor in that region

You should bone up on geopolitics if you want to discuss it.

[polly7]

83. Oh I know what Russia is doing in the region.

You should bone up on understanding that your right wing talking and scare points don't work on everyone. Sucks, eh?

[MaggieD]

85. Then why do you support Russia?

[polly7]

88. I support the people in every nation.

Why are you trying to paint Russia as the world's bad actor? I imagine you did the same for Iraq and Libya, Syria and every other 'enemy' you seem to have. Why do you support cluster bombs that destroy the lives of little children?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026726319

[MaggieD]

89. If that were true you would not support Russia

Have you ever spoken to a Russian that has emigrated here? I have. Russia is not friend to the people.

No where did I say I support cluster bombs. I'm simply telling you it is unrealistic for us to not have them when 62 other countries do, and would use them against our allies in a heartbeat.

I don't live in the Pollyanna rose colored world you live in. I got over that when I was about 23 years old. That is when I moved to reality land.

[polly7]

91. I have friends who've lived in Europe and travelled all over the place.

Russian people are very proud and millions love their country, just as you do yours. Many people hate what our cons are doing here in Canada - we've not been a friend to many people in Africa and the ME, in South America ruining environments with our mining corporations. What about your country - has it been a friend to everyone in the world? Is your country a friend to gays and minorities? Mine isn't, many times, to indigenous people. Glass houses and all - yours included.

And yes, you did support cluster bombs. I told you where to shove your support, too.

[sufrommich]

26. Aren't you one of the moderators of the Barack Obama group?

Do you think State Departments run independently of the President's administration?

[NYC_SKP]

30. Yes, I host the BOG and Sanders groups and 4 or 5 others.

State Departments are not micro-managed by the COC.

Hillary was a maverick, did all sorts of things against policy, this has been well documented.

You should know that, since you support her.

[MaggieD]

34. Oh come on - you know that's BS

http://grist.org/climate-energy/where-does-hillary-clinton-stand-on-fracking/

She wasn't bucking WH policy on this issue and you damn well know it.

[sufrommich]

38. "did all sorts of things against policy"

No, she didn't.

[NYC_SKP]

41. Clinton Foundation reported that it "violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration"

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

[sufrommich]

44. That's not exactly proof of a rogue State Department,is it?

[MaggieD]

46. Why change the subject?

Do you think she was going against WH policy when she encouraged countries to find alternate sources of energy instead of Russian oil?

If you think that you're just wrong.

[DhhD]

45. The Either Way. n/t

[WillyT]

42. K & R !!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Another day, another hit piece./NT

[NYC_SKP]

52. Why stop at one? The subject is ripe for picking.

Choose a better candidate and it will all go away.

Here, two more for ya:

Corporate ties: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026729962

The Foundation troubles: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026729963

[840high]

54. TY

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. If you gave me $10,000,000,000.00 I would not vote against Hillary Clinton

She is my idol. She is even giving the gentleman in my avatar a run for his money for my unyielding affection and he has been my idol since I was ten years old.

[cali]

72. seriously? she's your idol?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. She's a fighter...He's a fighter...I like to think of myself as a fighter./NT

[questionseverything]

122. when she promotes fracking

she is fighting to poison the water

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. I don't drink water, only Old Grand Dad. The distilling process kills the germs./NT

[Doctor_J]

55. Please trot out the excuses IN THIS ORDER

1. It was all Obama's idea. She was just following orders. Is and always has been green to the core

2. That was then. She has evolved. She may evolve back once in office, but for the campaign she's anti-fracking

3. Fossil fuels are and will be part of our energy solution for a long time to come. Fracking is a necessary evil

4. Hillary was a liberal, Hillary is a liberal

[MaggieD]

64. Reality is not an excuse

It's just reality. This thread is an excellent example of why people accuse the left of being elitist.

I guess you think we can wave a magic wand and people in Belarus. Bulgaria, etc will just be able to switch to solar power.

"Besides dislodging a bounty of natural gas, Mitchell’s breakthrough ignited an energy revolution. Between 2006 and 2008, domestic gas reserves jumped 35 percent. The United States later vaulted past Russia to become the world’s largest natural gas producer. As a result, prices dropped to record lows, and America began to wean itself from coal, along with oil and gas imports, which lessened its dependence on the Middle East. The surging global gas supply also helped shrink Russia’s economic clout: Profits for Russia’s state-owned gas company, Gazprom, plummeted by more than 60 percent between 2008 and 2009 alone."

Please live in reality.

[elleng]

62. Very sorry to say this but

'Hillary Clinton's State Department' was (and IS) Barack Obama's State Department. Cabinet agencies reflect the positions of the administrations in existence at the time, of necessity. (It's a different story with 'independent' regulatory agencies, like the SEC.)

[NYC_SKP]

71. True, no argument there. However, the title of the OP is verbatim from the source.

While I don't have any specific examples of Clinton or her subordinates going against the POTUS in their official duties, it's clear that some of her actions there (or some of the actions of her family foundation) represent potential appearances of a conflict of interest.

Energy like so many other resources and assets is commonly used as a pawn in the game of global engagement.

And promotion of domestic commercial interests, like selling US made goods as a way to grow or maintain jobs, is a great use of the office.

However, promoting Chevron and hydraulic fracturing in a foreign country against the policies of that government and at least some of the citizens (if we are to believe the article is accurate) is not particularly encouraging.

In any event you're correct, Obama could have reigned her in if he didn't approve- I don't know, however, that this means he sent her out there to do all the things she did.

I happen to support most of his domestic energy policy.

[elleng]

73. I understand that, SKP.

I'm not sure about his energy policy these days.

[TheNutcracker]

114. Sure just like when the President told her Sid was NOT to advise her. She did her own thing.

[MBS]

77. Her environmental stances are among the things

that worry me most. . the fracking M.O. is all too reminiscent of her approach to Keystone XL, whose analysis was also marred by conflict of interest issues, too much industry influence, and not enough attention to environmental consequences.

Another snippet from the Mother Jones article:

But environmental groups were barely consulted, while industry played a crucial role. When Goldwyn unveiled the initiative in April 2010, it was at a meeting of the United States Energy Association, a trade organization representing Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips, all of which were pursuing fracking overseas. Among their top targets was Poland, which preliminary studies suggested had abundant shale gas. The day after Goldwyn's announcement, the US Embassy in Warsaw helped organize a shale gas conference, underwritten by these same companies (plus the oil field services company Halliburton) and attended by officials from the departments of State and Energy.

[MaggieD]

84. Keystone?

"Clinton “has been quite clear that there’s a process in place” to settle Keystone’s future, League of Conservation Voters senior vice president Tiernan Sittenfeld said in an interview, “and she’s not going to comment before there’s a decision.”

Sittenfeld added that Clinton “has a long history of fighting climate change, as secretary, as senator, and through the Clinton Foundation. So we’re optimistic that once a rejection comes, she would support that.”

Besides, one official with one major green group said, environmentalists have made tremendous progress toward killing the pipeline.

“There’s a dynamic that’s already out there — we’ve done a good job of making this a highly scrutinized project,” the official said. “The president has been saying pretty consistently good things about climate change. We feel very confident that that’s leading up to a decision sooner than later, and one we’re going to like.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/greens-face-divide-over-hillary-clinton-and-keystone-117108.html#ixzz3bGZeGi4U

[MBS]

117. from that same article. .

But like Obama, she has resisted pressure to offer her own opinion on the project until the review is done, aside from one 2010 appearance in which she said the department was “inclined” to green-light it.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/greens-face-divide-over-hillary-clinton-and-keystone-117108.html#ixzz3bHc3zbgQ

And the State Dept environmental analysis of Keystone, which Clinton arranged, was, IMHO, compromised by the fact that there was a conflict of interest by the so-called "objective" analysts that she/her staff chose to do the work, since those "objective" analysis's had industrial ties and/or financial interest in moving Keystone forward. (Sorry I don't have time to dig up the link, but this has been discussed on DU earlier. .). So that's what worries me: the conflict of interest issues vis a vis business interests and energy industry in the official State Dept analysis, and the hint, at least in 2010 (see above0, that she's basically for it.

However, I agree with the strategy of the various environmental groups on going easy on her, since ANY Republican alternative would be 1000X worse on the environment than she.

Also, I'm hoping that Kerry and Obama will, in the end, reject Keystone XL (my guess is that Kerry at least is privately against it), so at least -- all fingers and toes crossed -- that issue hopefully will not be in play in the next administration.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. Well, she's not "dead broke" anymore.

[cantbeserious]

105. Now We Know Who HRC Really Represents

eom

[Agschmid]

121. The post is false.

But glad to see you post something new...

[hifiguy]

106. Only the most wilfully blind can refuse to see

who HRC's real bosses are: the bank$ter$, the MIC and the oil companies.

Anyone who denies this is genuinely delusional.