{totalconservative.com} ~ The left started jumping for joy a couple of weeks ago when a New York Times story made the absurd and quickly-disproven claim that Trump aide George Papadopoulos... NOT the Fusion GPS dossier – was responsible for kickstarting the FBI’s investigation into Moscow’s ties to the Trump campaign. After that was shown to be impossible, they jumped on the next grand revelation: Thanks to Sen. Dianne Fein-stein’s unilateral release of the Fusion GPS testimony, the left thought they had the smoking gun that would disprove the “it was all based on the phony dossier” story once and for all. “Essentially what he told me was they had other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source,” Simpson said in his August testimony. “My understanding was that they believed Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier at this point — that they believed Chris’s information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization.” This was quite difficult to swallow right off the bat, and anyone who thought it was a little too convenient had their suspicions confirmed within just a few hours. NBC’s Ken Dilanian said on Twitter: “A source close to Fusion GPS tells me there was no walk-in source – that was a mischaracterization by Simpson of the Australian diplomat tip about Papadopoulos.”... http://totalconservative.com/complete-lie-fbi-no-source-inside-trump-campaign/
by Jordan Candler: No city in America can function without fossil fuels. Nevertheless, last year a slew of money-grabbing opportunists along the California coastline began targeting BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell in court, where they are trying to compel said oil companies to fund climate change mitigation. Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Cruz and Imperial Beach along with Santa Cruz, Marin and San Mateo Counties argue that they shouldn’t be financially liable for erecting infrastructure to combat sea level rise. Instead, the municipalities contend, the funding should be seized from oil companies, wherein the fault allegedly lies. Successfully litigating a blockbuster attack on oil companies won’t be easy, particularly with what Exxon has dug up. While the plaintiffs point to an admonition from November in which, according to The Wall Street Journal, “Moody’s Investors Service flagged environmental disruptions as a ‘growing negative credit factor’ for coastal municipalities and said it would adjust its ratings methodology to take climate change into account,” Exxon has just retaliated with its own court filing by exposing some damning hypocrisy. When it came to persuading their own investors, these municipalities kept their mouths shut and looked the other way. For example, the Journal notes:
San Francisco’s lawsuit said it faced “imminent risk of catastrophic storm surge flooding,” while a general obligation bond offering last year said the city “is unable to predict whether sea-level or rise or other impacts of climate change … will occur.” Santa Cruz County said in its complaint it was experiencing more frequent and extreme droughts, precipitation events, heat waves and wildfires, and faced a 98% chance of a “devastating” three-foot flood by 2050. Yet a bond offering last year mentioned only “unpredictable climatic conditions, such as flood, droughts and destructive storms” as a risk factor.
How can these municipalities claim to be under imminent threat and expect oil companies to foot the bill when, in truth, they are lying to their own investors for the sake of business interests? Just another example of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Meanwhile, the anti-oil-company bandwagon continues to grow. This week, New York City took legal action against the same oil companies. According to the lawsuit, “In this litigation, the City seeks to shift the costs of protecting the City from climate change impacts back onto the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat.” Moreover, The Washington Post reports that “officials said they expect to divest up to $5 billion in investments from as many as 190 companies with fossil fuel ties, even as they promised to maintain their fiduciary duty to New York’s pensioners.”
It’s worth noting that analogous climate lawsuits against corporate entities have failed. And these should too. A New York Post editorial appropriately asks, “Why should the oil companies pay? They’re not actually burning the fuel — that’s the world’s utilities, motorists, etc.” Besides, it would be remarkably hypocritical to punish oil companies when their antagonists demonstrably engage in daily machinations. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53420
Comments