Already in a little hot water for lamenting supply and demand problems after Katrina while making record profits, the CEO's of major oil companies are now in a little bit of trouble for not exactly being honest with Congress in hearings to explain their profits:
"A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate 'to my knowledge,' and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know."
Well, the president of Shell Oil may not know if his own company participated or not, but the Secret Service does:
"The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson."
Of course the Washington Post isn't revealing where they got this document from, but one can imagine that source of the document was probably sitting in his/her recliner last week watching C-SPAN when he heard these oil company CEO's and presidents, and thought to himeself, "Hey, now wait a minute here...", before promptly digging out a copy and forwarding it on to a reporter.
So these lying cheats will get what's coming to them right?
"The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making 'any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation' to Congress."
Aw, thanks for looking out for us there Stevens. My fantasy is of these crooked lying bastards being locked-up for a few months with some not so white-collar criminals, but I doubt that'll happen. However...
"Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. 'The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force,' Lautenberg said."
Putting these bastards in front of a judge-or better yet, enraged members of Congress-and forcing them to explain how they can possibly not know if their own companies are involved in talks with aides to the Vice President of the United States, will do the trick for me.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I wonder though, could anything possibly come of this? I don't honestly know what restrictions we have on people making profits, except that we don't allow monopolies, collaboration between competitors, or price fixing. I guess theoretically we don't allow gouging, but who decides what too much of a profit is?
I'm not saying I don't think it should be pursued, or that oil companies ought not to get the hell spanked out of them for taking advantage of a captive market in a crisis, but really, do we have laws that say you can't? (That's a real question, because I don't know.)
Well you're right about that...there's really no law against excess profits. I mean, if they were arranging the shortages like those power companies did in California, then they could be sued or even tried criminally, but simply taking advantage of a situation to make a buck...well that's the American way, as long as you don't get too carried away. Of course, this is where capitalism has trouble. One could argue that their profits benefit society as a whole, and that might normally be true if gas was 99 cents a gallon, but when gas and fuel prices rise so high as to slow down the economy, then their extra $10 billion in profits doesn't really help us out.
Post a Comment