Social Question

Linda_Owl's avatar

Are any of you aware of the potential 'Conflict of Interest' posed by Susan Rice as the new Sec. of State?

Asked by Linda_Owl (7728points) November 29th, 2012

Susan Rice has invested in at least 12 Canadian Oil Companies & Canadian Banks that are trying to expand the Canadian Tar Sands project & the pipelines. According to this Link

This does not bode well for the environment of the United States or Canada.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

bookish1's avatar

No, but thank you for making me aware! O_O

elbanditoroso's avatar

I think that would make her more appealing to the Republican party – particularly those who are in favor of keystone pipeline and exploration. That will make her more easily confirmed.

Frankly, I think that the positives of her being SoS far outweigh the potential conflict of interest.

gorillapaws's avatar

The biggest concern I see there is RIM, I worry a bit about the wisdom of anyone who wants them in their portfolio, given how horrendously the upper management has been performing for the past half-decade or so. Other than that, I don’t see much of an issue. I’m really not sure what the whole shitstorm is about to be honest, is it just the Republicans trying to put the Democrats on defense after getting their asses handed to them in the last election?

Linda_Owl's avatar

She may be married to a man from Canada, @syz , but that does not mean that the potential for a ‘Conflict of Interest’ does not exist. Possibly there could be someone else who could be considered for the Secretary of State position? I am open to suggestions.

syz's avatar

My point, @Linda_Owl, is that this is just another tempest in a teapot. I feel pretty confident that if you looked at the investment portfolios of practically every cabinet holder, congressman, and representative, you’d find similar items that could be trumpeted as conflicts of interest.

Why not look at her qualifications and lifetime of public service and base a decision on that?

gondwanalon's avatar

I don’t see a conflict of interest here because after all, Obama is still the U.S. President and therefore the Keystone XL Pipeline project simply is not going to happen. Rice will likely lose a lot of money on her Canadian oil investments now .HA! C’est la vie!

JLeslie's avatar

Well, if the Bush’s can be President, I guess she can be secy of state.

ETpro's avatar

There is a huge conflict of interest in Republican eyes. If Ambassador Rice is nominated, John Kerry won’t be. If John Kerry isn’t nominated, he will keep his existing Senate seat. If he keeps his Senate seat, Scott Brown can’t run for that seat and possibly win it. Therefore, Senate Republicans will find fault with ANYBODY other than John Kerry, who they would confirm in a heartbeat.

augustlan's avatar

I really, really wish that people in the political arena had to sell off all of their investments while in office, whether elected or appointed.

JLeslie's avatar

@augustlan Already they have their lives scrutinized back to being a kid playing in the payground, making them sell everything might mean we never have another person run for office. Although, some businesses do seem to be more of a conflict of interest than others.

tedd's avatar

Conflict of interest?

Please find me a politician who doesn’t have at least one.

President Bush owned significant stock in oil companies, he got elected. You think Hillary Clinton doesn’t have major stock in various worldwide/foreign companies?

This is a red herring at best.

As if the Secretary of State would really have diddly squat to do with our governments interactions with several oil companies, that we already do a ton of business with.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther