E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIt’s not just Benghazi anymore.
One of the most controversial energy projects in the nation also has become a flash point in the drama surrounding who may become the next secretary of state – and it’s coming from the left instead of the right.
Back on Nov. 28, “OnEarth,” published by the Natural Resources Defense Council, dug into U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s financial disclosures and found that she and her husband have a stake in TransCanada, the company pushing for the Keystone XL Pipeline to be built.
NRDC officials say it's an important issue that must be discussed during the nomination process. But the timing of the report raises questions, as it is being surfaced by an environmental activist community that has previously given support to another potential secretary of state candidate – Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.
NBC News' Mark Murray explains why the partisan divide over the potential nomination of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is intensifying.
The decision on whether to approve the pipeline goes through the State Department.
“If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project,” Scott Dodd at “OnEarth” wrote. “Rice's financial holdings could raise questions about her status as a neutral decision maker.”
Dodd noted that “Rice owns stock valued between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada, the company seeking a federal permit to transport tar sands crude 1,700 miles to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, crossing fragile Midwest ecosystems and the largest freshwater aquifer in North America.”
Bill McKibben, an anti-pipeline activist, told the publication: “It’s really amazing that they’re considering someone for Secretary of State who has millions invested in these companies. The State Department has been rife with collusion with the Canadian pipeline builders, and it’s really distressing to have any sense that that might continue to go on.”
Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, the NRDC's director of international programs, sounded a less strident tone a day later: "What's most important is that she rid herself of her holdings in TransCanada and other tar sands-related companies, and we're confident she will do that ... What's most important is that we have a good, thorough review done.”
Danielle Droitsch, a senior attorney for the NRDC and director of the Canada Project, told First Read: “We think Ambassador Rice has the credentials to be secretary of state, but if she were nominated, and then appointed, these holdings would have to be addressed.”
She added that “high-level officials dealing with Keystone should not have any conflicts of interest.”
The likelihood is that, if nominated, Rice will have to divest herself of her TransCanada investment to avoid a conflict of interest.
Will new Obama appointments come this week? Is there a way to get both John Kerry and Susan Rice into the Obama cabinet? NBC News' Chuck Todd and Time's Joe Klein join the discussion.
The environmental group’s effort to shed light on Rice’s financial interest in TransCanada could be just an attempt, if Rice is nominated, to get a “thorough review” and make sure it has a staunch ally in trying to thwart the project, as Casey-Lefkowitz said.
But could it also be a signal that the NRDC prefers another candidate for the job – Kerry, the other of the final two candidates reportedly being considered for the post?
After all, environmental groups have strongly supported Kerry in the past and have a long working relationship with him. Like they would for most Democrats in a presidential election, for example, the NRDC and the League of Conservation Voters, among others, ran ads in the 2004 election boosting Kerry.
LCV even endorsed Kerry before the New Hampshire Democratic primary that year, although it has notably not spoken out about Rice.
Droitsch, however, would not address whom the NRDC prefers for the job.
“We’re trying to signal that the pipeline decision has to be conflict-free,” Droitsch said. “That would pertain to any potential nominee. The president has the prerogative to nominate the person he believes is best for the position.”
The Senate will then raise questions, however, she said. And “now is important to raise the issue ... We want to make sure that anyone who’s being considered would be free of those conflicts. That’s our primary interest right now.”
The NRDC, which has been very involved in efforts to block Keystone, is the environmental interest group most pressing the issue of Rice’s financials.
But others might not be as keen to see Kerry leave Capitol Hill. After all, consider that green groups already spent a lot of money trying to oust Republican Scott Brown from the Senate – and were successful.
But if Kerry becomes secretary of state (or even defense secretary), his seat would become vacant, raising the potential for a costly and competitive special election.
“Who cares if the U.N. ambassador has a TransCanada stock. Who cares if the head of the FDA has TransCanada stock,” said a Democratic strategist and ally of the administration who is a veteran of confirmation battles.
“If she [Rice] were to be nominated, she would go through a process by which we look for financials conflicts. Maybe this stock would be identified as something that posed a conflict, and she would sell," the strategist said. "But she hasn't gone through that process, because she's not a nominee to anything. If they want to say that if she is the nominee, she should sell the stock, that's fine. But you can't legitimately hit her for having it now. And that is likely why NRDC backed off and no other environmental groups have piled-on.”
What really is going on here likely has less to do with Rice and whether she should ascend to secretary of state, and more with the NRDC leveraging pressure on the president and the administration to make sure the pipeline is rejected again once it comes up for approval. And that could be soon.
The next step in that approval phase, in fact, could come as early as next week, Droitsch said. TransCanada has applied for a shortened pipeline in hopes of having that approved – something the NRDC strongly opposes. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement could be released by the State Department as early as next week, Droitsch said.
“It is critically important for there to be independent decision-makers, free of conflict of interest, who can take an independent view,” she said.
She then tied the administration’s decision on the pipeline to climate change, an issue that has regained prominence as a result of Hurricane Sandy. In the days following Sandy’s landfall, in fact, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed President Barack Obama for his leadership on climate change.
How Obama decides on the pipeline “signals where the U.S. is headed in terms of importing dirty fuels, inconsistent with an administration that is committed to fighting climate change,” Droitsch said.
“We’re confident President Obama understands the seriousness around the issues surrounding this pipeline. Approving it sends the wrong signal about our country’s commitment to climate change. Yes, he’s under a lot of pressure, but the public is very concerned about this. It’s not a decision I know he’ll view lightly.”
Leave a Comment:
Maria
.
The Republicans have been bound and determined to not have Rice even enter the process for State. McCain started the fight before she was even nominated! Who does that with anyone else? So she has some stock. All politicians hold stock and if this is a conflict, they simply divest themselves of it. It's done all the time. This is no different. The Republicans are scared of Rice for some reason OR they simply feel they have more power over a good ole boy Kerry. The more the Republicans fight against Rice, the more I want her. I definitely prefer Rice over Kerry. It's time for some fresh blood in Washington. Besides, the pipeline would have to be approved by the President, NOT just the Secretary of State. So this is all a moot point.
lp...why are you so locked in to think that it a great conspiracy? Did you ever think that she simply is not qualified and has a history of being a puppet, you idiot!!!
So basically unless the Republicans just outright agree with Obama each and every time, they will be considered the bad guys.
HELLO!!
Two different parties with two different philosophies are going to disagree with each other.
That shouldn't be a surprise to either side but somehow it always is. Partisan politics...got to love it.
McCain and Graham's complaints about Rice and Bengazi are bogus and only the ignorant believe otherwise.
If you've actually followed politics for the last fifteen years or so you can tell when McCain is faking outrage. As for Graham, he should take acting lessons since his faux indignation wouldn't land him a role in a "B" movie.
If Obama nominates Rice then she'll become Secretary of State, it's that simple. We're not talking about a federal judgeship where the opposition has no fear of blocking the nomination. The Administration will march Hillary, Patreus, and countless others up to the capital in her defense.
After getting wholloped in the last election senate Republicans aren't going to vote "No." They'd look like the obstructionist they claim not to be.
Frankly, American voters have the Repubicans on a short leash.
Entitlements Obama got his Rice will get hers.Hell they both have free Obama phones.I bet they opt out of Obama care.I smell fried chicken.
Americans must really have short memories. Yes John Kerry went to Vet NAm, came home and joined Hanoi Jane Fonda and talked against the war, he should Ms. Hanoi Jane, should be tried for treason. He is not fit to be Secretary of State, I did not think he deserved to be a Senator, but Ma, chose that. But He is not a fit to be the Secretary.
It SEEMS, the right chooses to believe in things that are at best "unknowable", like their religion (which is always "interpreted" by men, telling followers "what god "meant"), which for one thing hasn't made very many of them compassionate, caring and unselfish like their invisible god. I'm all for religion in one regard, if it helps mankind evolve), for example (follow the teaching of the compassionate Christ) but I don't see that, in fact, just the opposite. Condemnation of ALL they disagree with, and demanding their agenda become the law of the land.
Believing in failed policies that have driven the country to dire times, and doing it over and over again, IS something they SEEM to believe in. Yet quickly forgetting they were the ones who created this situation, by regulating the banks, along with Clinton and democrats admittedly. When you give anyone the ability to do what they want, they will abuse that "freedom", for their own betterment; no surprise that the banks failed, by speculating with their customers money. They lost much of it, and then the customers and the rest of America "GAVE" them money to prevent them from collapsing. Now, the right wants to keep things unregulated so the same thing can happen again and again, and each time the "few" gain vast amounts of wealth, and the rest of us holding the bill. Why is this a good thing for any American, who's not a millionaire/billionaire?
The "right" will believe in an invisible god, which they are welcome and protected to do, but what about "real" evidence of disastrous policies and complete "denial" of, at the very least some unusual weather patterns that SEEM to be on track with prediction of "MOST" scientists concerning climate change. After a hundred and twenty-five years of emitting vast amounts of pollution into the air, they can't seem to get their heads around the fact that it MAY very well be a good idea to reduce and "regulate" companies that will not police themselves anymore than the rest of us, hence our structure of a police force and "important" government agencies, and admittedly, a failed and corrupt judicial system. It's regulation of the people of America, to do the best to ensure people don't go around "unregulated". Imagine, if you will, an America with no rules or laws on how it's people should conduct themselves within this society. It's the same thing with corporations, which are merely a collective group of individual people/Americans, that need "policing" just like the individual American citizen. Especially, now that corporations are legally "people" they need the same guidelines, rules, laws regulating their conduct. It's as simple as human nature, we will do things that are not good for whole, but good for us, "IF" not given a guideline, rules to co-exist with each other.
Are these ideas really that far off, and not worthy of real, valid discussion? Why fight to protect an invisible god and not the planet we "live" on? SEEMS a bit off to me, how about you?
Well, Paul, it would be refreshing to hear some real evidence rather than the standard mantra put out by the libtards and the environmental terrorists. Do your own research. Even if mankind could do someething it would take 1,000+ years to make a difference. That we are on a warmning trend is obvious, but the cause of it is the question. Do you think you could consider that the sun has more effect upon the Earth's climnate than anything else? Why the hate of carbon??? The main reason is to bring draconianlaws regarding energy uses, restrict the use of carbon based energy, while at the same time fighting most avenues of renewable or self sutaining sources of energy. This globe we live on has had warming and cooling cycles since its begening, regardles what the above mentioned two groups say or do. Do you recall the oil and coal deposits on both poles? they did not get there in frigidity,but in a tropical climate. The Ice Age?? Did the Earth have a great warming trend then to bring us to where we are to day? We need to take the dictorial desires out of science and let the real researchers let their findings be known. By the way, the more carbon in the atomosphere the more flora; the more flora the more O2given off as a waste product of photosynthesis. Perhaps the increase of CO2 could be rerelated to the destruction of the forrests world wide, which consumed massive amounts of this gas, to satisfy the greed?
Keith, I prefer to look at whats happening now, and doing what we can to reverse all the devastation brought on the earth by greed. You admit as much that greed for resources by those that make great wealth a huge issue concerning where we are today.
Scientists are researchers; any other claim as to their function is at best insincere. You want researchers that work for the corporations to be the "final word", and that simply is not acceptable. It is with that belief where the "greed" over powers, common sense and what is good for the planet and all those living on it.
Why do you and your fellow repubs, find those that care about our water, air, and the overall health of the environment so distasteful? I don't think we have been on this planet long enough to know it's exact patterns of the past, and what will happen in the future, but we can see what is happening NOW. Those that deny there "could be" a connection between climate change and our long history of polluting and possibly destroying the capacity of our atmosphere to reflect deadly sun rays, that without, will eventually scorch everything on earth.
What I hear you and those of your belief saying, is go ahead and keep destroying the planet because we can't do anything about it anyway, seems naive and defeatist. Seems you have already decided you want to continue as long as we can with fossil fuels until we have no more. I don't have children, but millions and millions do, and I would be willing to say they would not want to leave the future of world to such a belief. You may well have children yourself, and I doubt you want anything less for your family.
You claim I have the "libtards" and "environmental terrorists" taking points and just regurgitating this belief, is untrue, but my own opinion. First, I dont' find the use of "libtards" as a term coming form someone who is serious about this entire issue, and an immature at best. As for the "environmental terrorists"; are you referring to the oil, gas, logging and cattle/sheep, etc. industries? If so, you have described these industries, as the "environmental terrorists" that they surely are. You may not be, in fact, I'm fairly sure you're referring to those that fight these very industries and expose them for the greedy, make money at any cost corporations. Please explain what your meaning of "environmental terrorists" and how they are terrorizing the environment if you would, please.
As for Obama and Rice, it seems to me Obama has given himself an out by prolonging the decision on the XL pipeline, when Sec. Clinton wanted more time to "review" the implications of the pipeline. Based on IBM's history he will probably allow the pipeline based on Sec. Rice's approval, if choosen and confirmed, to appease his oil and gas friends. What has been so interesting to me about the right being so opposed to Obama, is the very fact that he has done more for the republican agenda than the democrats, i.e increased drilling over the previous administration, illegally taking lands that where lawfully given to various animals in the Midwest, and other areas to a lesser degree, continued surveillance and wiretapping of American citizens, rendition, black sites, taking more and more control of the executive branch of gov't, that IMO can only end badly for America.
I'm not a democrat, republican or affiliated with any party; rather, I prefer to think I'm a common sense man, thinking for myself.
regards,
Paul Hester
Paul, just to let you know Rice is a female, in reference to "Rice's approval, if choosen and confirmed, to appease his oil and gas friends."
I don't care that his name won't go away...I just want him to go away.
morons on the left carrying water for the hair on fire morons on the right.
Stop feeding into the stupidity.
the right wing wants Kerry's senate seat open so they can run brown again.
stop being so gullible.
Another lying hypocrite who places her financial well being above all other concerns. Learned from the best, Kennedy's, clintons , pelosi
Why are these people trying to sabotage the career of Susan Rice? How many times have people running for office had to relinquish some of their holdings in order to get through the vetting process. It happens all the time. Her holdings are legal and it would be par course for her to get rid of them to qualify for the position of Secretary of State. With all of the assets held by Romney and his family, the media glossed over them and never made a big deal about them. There's no story here, and I'm hoping she gets the position. She clearly deserves it!
Big deal. Anybody wanna check Kerry's "stakes" in anything ? He and his wife are needing to be investigated for insider trading for sure, among other things.
have a really crappy day to all of you d. c. scum of the earth.
I like the Libtard title. Both Rice and kerry are prevaricators and procrastinators. Kerry has yet to correct his "service record" and refute, if he is able, his fellow service men who know him and his apalling record. Rice seems to be horriblyt unqualified for any cabnet office,or any political office at all, given her connection to oblama/ The SOS (help, or s....on a shingle) or maore aptly, applied to a qualified person Secretary of State represents this country to the world....I would vote for Condi to come back: she was smaert and knew how to represent this nationin a dignified and respectfull way.
It would help if you learned to spell before you post.
Most politicians have investments that came from non-pulbic disclosures. In other words - most all of them crooked - republicans and democrats.
I say if we have to cut entitlements lets start with the top..ie; congressman, senators and judges - cut their pensions and let them pay for their own health car - they can afford it!
These guys are always more then willing to cut our benefits while giving themselves raises and other perks.
Cut NSA (80% of the people could be let go and the place wouldn't skip a beat) - I know - been there.
PENTAGON (another place where you could cut a lot of fat)
Republicans want Kerry's seat. That is all.
R u stupid...the dems get fresh blood in their...Kerry bleeds Heinz ketchup
The fat old southern white men of the NRDC need to get with the program and stop supporting only white men!! This is racism!! Where's Al and Jesse????? And where's Detroit's bailout? That's racist too.
I've worked in Idaho my whole life and it is a 'right to work' state. It's this simple, you do your job and do it well, you get to keep your job. You get raises based on your work, not someone elses'. Everyone wants to talk about fair, it doesn't get any fairer than that. You get what you earn. You don't work, you don't get paid. You don't do your job well, you don't get raises. You don't show up on time, you get fired and someone who really WANTS the paycheck takes your place. Wow, what a novel idea. If you aren't worth a squat, that's reflected in your paycheck. No bigger incentive than that. You get what you're worth, not what someone else is worth.
Thank god some out there understands unions are not ALL GOOD. I would really like to sit in at a union meeting and hear if anyone bitches about any members not doing their job, and still getting paid the same as them. I work in public edcation so I get to see the teachers not doing the work and getting paid, and threatening to go to the union when they are asked to do their job.
SCCHAT, on the other side of your contention not all union members are lazy. In many instances it keeps in check sadistic and power drunk managers which there are many of them in Civil Service. It is the union reps and attorneys that prevent these perverted people from damaging the careers and psychological state of many good employees especially whistle blowers who are looking out for the public money. So don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Some professional unions, let's say for scientists, prevent their work from being perverted by non-scientists and by some who do not have degrees editing scientific manuscripts to fit into the ideology of the current administration. If you are a teacher then you know what I am saying is totally unacceptable for a society, academia and Presidents to condone.
I am making reference to the White House incident when peer reviewed scientific reports on Climate Change to the Office of Science and Technology Policy were edited by a Bush hire who was exposed as lying about his academic credentials and summarily fired. It was the Scientist Union that brought all of this to light of day. So not all unions and union members are dead beats but good people who work hard but need protection from the politically misguided non-scientists who were highly prevalent during the Bush II administration. None of my points are anecdotal but documented facts.
Come on. Why would Rice be in Barry's government unless she could make a bundle. If anyone thinks that those closest to the little man in the White House won't come out of their service rich then this is not the USA.
This is Chicago style so everyone gets a pie not just a piece. Sure the mob thinks he and his henchmen are all for them. Keep that dream alive.
The backgrounds of all of the gang need to be investigated just to see how far they have come in 4 years. Another 4 and they are all set for life.
GBA
Why do we need the Keystone pipeline? It doesn't benefit the US except for a Gulf Coast refinery. I have no objection to its approval but stop touting the bogus benefits to this country.
Ambassador Rice has demonstrated loyalty in doing supremely stupid things...Kerry might be goofy but he can think
I see the "race card" played here in many comments. I have seen this consistently when there is no other defense or qualifactions for years. Easy to accuse someone of "racism" and is difficult to clear yourself of these allegations. Truth is may black people use their race to get what they want or defend themselves. Easier for them to get entitlements, government jobs,and almost impossible to fire an incompetent or lazy worker without a prejudice claim.
Comment here about whites voting for Romney because Obama is black does not compare with the other side of the coin. Did Romney get 95% of the white vote???? Did Obama get reelected because he got 95% of the black vote because he is black???? Certainly was not based on performance. Appears racism is on the other foot.
Sec of state should be a job for a man, not a woman. A big part of the world do not respect women.
A must read on Benghazi....www.canadafreepress.com by Doug Hagmann....read and pass along please !!
Anything that would get Kerry out of the Senate would be a good thing.
Rice as SoS is like bringing a knife to a gun fight
Funny. When the left finally becomes against Rice, suddenly, not a single mention of "sexism" or "racism" being the actual reasons.
That would be because leftists, being more evolved, are seldom racists or sexists in this day and age, unlike those from the right.