Ambassador Rice's Conflict of Interest -- Canadian Oil Interests

It's very telling that the GOP senators' problem with Susan Rice as a potential Sec. of State nominee has to do with a trumped-up charge having nothing to do with her, i.e. Benghazi-gate, when in fact she is fairly stinking rich and has major conflicts of interest with respect to the Keystone pipeline. It says a lot about these senate fat cats that they don't bring this issue up. It also says a lot about Democrats and MSNBC pundits as well -- don't get me wrong, I'm not a shill for the corporate wing of the Democratic party.

Susan Rice's would-be path to the U.S. State Department hit another snag on Wednesday following revelations that she owns significant stock in Calgary-based TransCanada, the energy giant hoping to win approval from the Obama administration to build its Keystone XL pipeline...

If Rice, the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is tapped to be Hillary Clinton's replacement as secretary of state — and subsequently survives the nomination process in the U.S. Senate — she'd be in a potential conflict-of-interest situation.

As first reported by On Earth, an environmental news website, Rice holds substantial investments in several Canadian oil companies and financial institutions that stand to gain from both the pipeline and the expansion of Alberta's oilsands.

Financial disclosure records show that Rice, who's married to a Canadian, owns stock valued between US$300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada (TSX:TRP).

The records also show that about a third of Rice's personal wealth — estimated to be as high as $43 million — is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators and other energy industries in Canada.

Susan Rice's Canadian Oil Interests Pose Potential Conflict

So why doesn't the main-stream corporate media bring up this story? [rhetorical question alert]

We need to get the money and rich fuhx out of politics and the government. But please, former Romney supporters, don't try telling us that this sort of thing wouldn't happen on his watch. The GOP establishment is all about conflicts of interest; to wit: Dick Cheney as former CEO of Haliburton and all the no-bid, cost-plus contracts Haliburton and other companies got in Iraq during his tenor as VP of the US.

Lots more about the conflicts of interest in Rice's investment portfolio in the linked news article.

its nice to know that canadians are benefiting from their natural resources.

transcanada is one of the worst offenders of eminent domain. and the future secretary of state of america owns major stock in it.

way to work for the american people.

if you own land anywhere near their pipeline, you have two choices; sign their lopsided lease or have your land confiscated.

and it already has happened. numerous times.

i'm shocked that the land of the "free" still practices eminent domain. that's a relic from feudal lords, communists, fascists, english kings and other totalitarian regimes that put the state before the people.

Yes, I read about this in Mother Jones.

Technically, this probably wouldn't disqualify her, but it certainly would open up discussion on the pipeline and oil interests. It is the discussion of this topic that is not wanted.

No, let the people be outraged by a fake campaign of outrage over other matters. There is a fake campaign about Ms. Rice, to attempt to get her out of the way, because if Kerry gets confirmed, the GOP has another crack at a Senate seat... the one vacated by Kerry! But, shhhh, don't talk about corporate, oil interest, influence/take over of politicians/gov't.

I suppose this could be a conflict of interest; with the exception of a couple of things:

(1) Susan Rice doesn't have any say (vote) in whether or not the pipeline is built; and
(2) This pipeline will never be approved as long as Obama is POTUS.

Nevertheless, these types of conflicts of interest come up quite often and there are rules set in place as to how to handle them.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
I suppose this could be a conflict of interest; with the exception of a couple of things:

(1) Susan Rice doesn't have any say (vote) in whether or not the pipeline is built; and
(2) This pipeline will never be approved as long as Obama is POTUS.

Nevertheless, these types of conflicts of interest come up quite often and there are rules set in place as to how to handle them.

The State Dept. will have final say in this matter, and if she is Sec. of State, she'll have final say on what the final say will be. And why won't the pipeline be approved as long as Obama is president? He's the guy that opened up more offshore drilling and has kowtowed to BP in the Gulf oil disaster; amongst other things, he has given BP control over the Coast Guard in policing affected areas. Nope, no reason to trust Obama to protect the country's interests in this matter of the pipeline.

On another note, I have to say I am very disappointed about the low response to this thread. One would think the Benghazi-gate Susan Rice bashers would want to get in on this topic, but apparently not. Besides which, they are probably all for this pipeline because shipping this Canadian oil down to the Gulf coast, where it can then be exported to China and Japan is going to help the US economy and make the US energy independent because...er...er...er...-- let me get back to you all on that one...

Guess I should have put bigfoot DNA or Roswell alien interview in the title if I wanted more viewage...

Just the thought that someone in the government has 43million dollars and is invested in Oil disgusts me like crazy. Doesn't matter who...

To me that just means they all have these types of agendas going on maintaining oil profits and status quo.

F. THEM.

I have a slightly different thought. Is it possible that the White House sees that Rice is heading for trouble and doesn't want to discuss Benghazi any more than it has to? Certainly Benghazi will be discussed in the hearings and the debates, so the question might be how to get her out of the hearings without admitting there is some problem with Benghazi?

To solve this, a source completely sympathetic to the administration, might have been used to put out a story which can serve as an excuse to drop her without bringing up Benghazi, or implying that either she or Obama did anything wrong.

I believe it's called being "thrown under the bus."

Well isn't that an interesting piece of information I did not know about.

Just one more nail in the coffin of this XL Pipeline madness.

I'm telling you, there will be domestic terrorism in Canada and the US if this project gets approved. Nobody is going to allow the potential destruction of the most beautiful parts of BC and the US for this nonsense.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Wrong pipeline tenth but I do agree these pipelines and the conflict of interest created when a person with final say is obviously going to push there own agenda when it comes to money to be made. My personal opinion is it was high time to root corruption out of the Amerikan government and the people voted not too and maintain the status quo of the rich maintaining power and getting richer, we both countries Canada and the US have no body but our selves to blame for voting these clowns in.

SaneThinking

KeyStone XL will go from alberta through Sask down to the Gulf Coast acorss the Amerikan heartland

Northern Gateway goes from Alberta trough and across the rockies, interior mountain range and coastal mountain range into Kitimat and is the worst possible route/pipeline/shipping lane/ general idea ever.....

reply to post by SaneThinking


Thanks Sane, my bad.

Both pipelines would eventually be connected though right? This is an even greater problem if you ask me. That along with the sale of businesses to Chinese Government interests...what is this nation coming to?

I lived in BC for a while after university. That place is Canada's jewel...and we shoudl be doing far more to protect it.

Alberta, well they turned their province into a sewage heap and I feel not once ounce of pity. They saw dollar signs and let the province around them turn to crap as the coffers grew full. They also have the audacity to claim that Albertan oil and money garnered from it belongs to the province alone and not the rest of Canada.

I'm always amazed when one group of people try to claim ownership of resources that I, as a citizen own part of.

~Tenth

Originally posted by yourmaker
Just the thought that someone in the government has 43million dollars and is invested in Oil disgusts me like crazy. Doesn't matter who...

To me that just means they all have these types of agendas going on maintaining oil profits and status quo.

F. THEM.

please...hello? dick cheney VP?...millions in haliburton during the iraq war!!! cheney and bushs investments in the oil and gas industry, makes rice look like a rookie.

Originally posted by charles1952
I have a slightly different thought. Is it possible that the White House sees that Rice is heading for trouble and doesn't want to discuss Benghazi any more than it has to? Certainly Benghazi will be discussed in the hearings and the debates, so the question might be how to get her out of the hearings without admitting there is some problem with Benghazi?

To solve this, a source completely sympathetic to the administration, might have been used to put out a story which can serve as an excuse to drop her without bringing up Benghazi, or implying that either she or Obama did anything wrong.

I believe it's called being "thrown under the bus."

As Rice isn't responsible for the Benghazi attack or how it was handled or P.R.'ed, I don't see how your theory holds any water. On the contrary, given this obvious conflict of interest and her rather massive wealth, it seems like the Benghazi kerfluffle is being used to divert attention from Rice's C.o.I. with the pipeline. And no senators want to bring such an issue up because they all are also stinking rich and have C.o.I.'s up the wazoo.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by yourmaker
Just the thought that someone in the government has 43million dollars and is invested in Oil disgusts me like crazy. Doesn't matter who...

To me that just means they all have these types of agendas going on maintaining oil profits and status quo.

F. THEM.

please...hello? dick cheney VP?...millions in haliburton during the iraq war!!! cheney and bushs investments in the oil and gas industry, makes rice look like a rookie.

I don't see the poster you are responding to saying that Cheney and the rest of BushCO were any better, but rather is just pointing out that both main parties are rife with such folk and their conflicts of interest.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Dear MrInquisitive,

That's a fascinating theory, thanks for bringing it up. I think, though, I'm going to have to stick with what seems simpler and cleaner.

it seems like the Benghazi kerfluffle is being used to divert attention from Rice's C.o.I. with the pipeline.

But Benghazi was brought up much before the oil stocks. So it was being used to divert attention away from something that hadn't happened? I just don't see that.

And no senators want to bring such an issue up because they all are also stinking rich and have C.o.I.'s up the wazoo.

So all of the Senators have conflicts of interest which haven't been caught by any of the audits and mandatory reporting forms? That's too broad an allegation for me to accept easily. Further, if all the Senators knew it, musn't Obama have known it as well? Then why appoint her, later express complete confidence in her, and finally say that her statements were no big deal? Obama wants to put someone in the Secretary's position, knowing that he knows, and probably every one on Capitol Hill knows, that she has this conflict? Does he not fear a leak?

Finally, no one is accusing her of having anything to do with the Benghazi attack. She was sent out by the White House to provide false information to America. Did she know it was false? Was she not briefed as our UN Ambassador on the truth? These are the questions being asked, and according to the press, not being believably answered.

I know my theory sounds crazy, but I haven't seen a better one in this thread.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Dear MrInquisitive,

That's a fascinating theory, thanks for bringing it up. I think, though, I'm going to have to stick with what seems simpler and cleaner.

it seems like the Benghazi kerfluffle is being used to divert attention from Rice's C.o.I. with the pipeline.

But Benghazi was brought up much before the oil stocks. So it was being used to divert attention away from something that hadn't happened? I just don't see that.

And no senators want to bring such an issue up because they all are also stinking rich and have C.o.I.'s up the wazoo.

So all of the Senators have conflicts of interest which haven't been caught by any of the audits and mandatory reporting forms? That's too broad an allegation for me to accept easily. Further, if all the Senators knew it, musn't Obama have known it as well? Then why appoint her, later express complete confidence in her, and finally say that her statements were no big deal? Obama wants to put someone in the Secretary's position, knowing that he knows, and probably every one on Capitol Hill knows, that she has this conflict? Does he not fear a leak?

Finally, no one is accusing her of having anything to do with the Benghazi attack. She was sent out by the White House to provide false information to America. Did she know it was false? Was she not briefed as our UN Ambassador on the truth? These are the questions being asked, and according to the press, not being believably answered.

I know my theory sounds crazy, but I haven't seen a better one in this thread.

With respect,
Charles1952

Check out the wealth of all the Senators -- and the members of the House for that matter. Most all are millionaires, and when one is a millionaire, one has large amounts of money invested in one thing or another. Did you see the fairly recent 60 minutes segment on congressional conflicts of interest? These congress fuhx get to make legislation so, in fact, they have insider information that they can use to make investments concerning -- and they do so. They also get sweetheart loans that normal folks can't get. There are all kinds of perks/conflicts of interest that apparently don't rise to an issue anymore. Then there's all the campaign money they get from various interests, and as long as no EXPLICIT quid pro quo is given, it is ok; but this doesn't mean that they aren't actually influenced by campaign donations.

You're being very gullible if you think there is enough oversight of ethics for congress. And frankly, just about all very rich people are as wealthy as they are because they bend or break rules -- or inherited their money. One doesn't get ahead by playing by the rules.

As to our respective theories (mine was just a throw-away one, for the record), there may be something to Benghazi-gate, but if Rice was only being a spokesperson for the Admin, then why should it stick to her, and so why would her conflicts of interest come up as deflection for her "worse" issues involving Benghazi-gate? That makes zero sense. If anything should be an issue with her becoming Sec. of State, it should be her financial interests, not that she parroted what was on the talking-point memos given to her concerning the Benghazi attack.

And I am curious, does whatever Rice -- and the entire Obama Admin for that matter -- have said regarding the Benghazi attack rise to the lies that Condaleeza Rice and the Bush Admin gave about WMDs and nukes in Iraq, which where the causus belli for that bloody conflict that has killed about a thousand-fold more Americans -- not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Yet Condee was made Sec. of State after her lies/misinformation.

As to the Benghazi thing itself, it appears to have been some sort of CIA gig -- either arms shipments from Libya to Syria, or this "diplomatic compound" was being used to hold and interrogate "terrorist" suspects. This latter hypothesis has been supplied by Petraeus' s former squeeze. And speaking of which, could this apparent security lapse be due to the CIA director and one-time Don Juan being wrapped up in his personal issues at the time and so not have been focusing on his job? Seems as likely as anything else.

In any case, I am much more concerned about Rice's conflicts of interest rather than her part in Benghazi-gate. Seems Petraeus and Billary are the two people to pillory if anyone should be.