I don't have to prove anything. That's on the one making the allegations. This so-called news article is nothing but hearsay and unsubstantiated sources.

Opening up the market too much is just as bad as limiting it. There is that fine line.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/23/trumps-quest-to-drive-down-oil-prices-turns-the-screw-on-american-drillers.html


Exxon Mobil earned $225 billion in profits 8 years under Obama.  $32 billion under 4 year with Trump.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2024/02/18/why-exxonmobil-earned-more-under-biden-than-under-trump/?sh=14a7c32d1eaf

Before persisting with the silly.....   realize that oil prices cratered, (to acutal zero one day) during the Pandemic due to demand  DJT had absolutley nothing to do with that crash....   Except the point that he sponsored and supported policies opening the spigot to Max. 

Stop embarassing yourself.

You don't know shit about Big Oil.

Prove the multiple articles I posted wrong.  The fact is Trump opened up the oil spicket too much and oil co's suffered

Not sure how the oil co's will take this. The oil co's did not like the 4 years of Trump. Trump has said so multiple times. 'The oil co's hated me when I was President" was his exact words.

Trump opened up the oil free market too much and the oil co's burned through a trillion dollars of cash reserves. 2.00 per gallon gas was great for the consumer but not so much for the oil co's. Gas will never be below $3 ever again on a national average even of Trump is reelected. Articles are now just coming out the oil co's limited refinery production to keep the price of gas per gallon high since 2021 to build back their cash reserves even though record oil production.

The Dow threated to delist Exxon because they had burned through their cash reserves and their financials were bringing down the Dow. This is not the only reason they was delisted but it was a factor. Wall Street demanded oil co's make more profits

Exxon has since been removed from the Dow in 2020

You don't know shit about Big Oil.

American Military News by Kevin Rector - Los Angeles Times  May 09, 2024

Do dying patients have a “right to try” illegal drugs such as psilocybin and MDMA if they might alleviate end-of-life suffering from anxiety and depression?

That question is now before one of the nation’s highest courts, with a Seattle-based palliative care physician appealing a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration decision barring him from prescribing psilocybin to his late-stage cancer patients.

Dr. Sunil Aggarwal says he has a right to prescribe psilocybin — the hallucinogenic compound in “magic mushrooms” — under state and federal “right to try” laws, which give terminal patients access to experimental drug therapies before they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. More than 40 states, including Washington and California, have such laws in place, and Congress passed a federal version in 2018.

“I have patients who want to try psilocybin-assisted therapy for existential distress,” Aggarwal said in an interview with The Times. “And there are lots of studies that support that.”

The DEA has denied Aggarwal’s request, arguing that therapeutic use of psilocybin remains banned — even for terminal patients — under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which lists the drug as a “Schedule I” narcotic with no recognized medical use. The agency said Aggarwal could only work with the drug if he received a license to do so as a researcher, not as a regular part of his palliative care practice.

The case is one of two Aggarwal now has pending before the 9th Circuit, each pitting the DEA’s law enforcement authority against state powers to regulate medicine. In the second case, Aggarwal is asking the DEA to simply reschedule psilocybin, making it available for therapy — not just research.

Physicians and medical experts across the country are closely watching the “right to try” case, and eight states and the District of Columbia have weighed in directly in support of Aggarwal.

In February, the state coalition filed a brief that accused the DEA of reaching far beyond its law enforcement role of preventing the illegal diversion of powerful narcotics. They said the DEA’s assertion that the Controlled Substances Act trumps state right-to-try laws represented a “threat to state sovereignty.”

“If accepted, DEA’s interpretation would ratify federal involvement in some of the most wrenching decisions a person can make, based on the most ‘attenuated’ relationship to any conceivable federal interest,” Washington Deputy Solicitor General Peter Gonick wrote on behalf of the coalition.

Gonick said there is no reason to believe that allowing psilocybin to be given to terminal patients under doctor supervision “will substantially affect any interstate market in such substances or otherwise contribute to illicit use, even in the aggregate.”

More: https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/05/do-dying-people-have-a-right-to-try-magic-mushrooms-9th-circuit-weighs-case/