ExxonMobil attorney Ted Wells unleashed a brutal takedown of the New York Attorney General’s case in his closing arguments Thursday, criticizing the State’s inept performance and highlighting their inability to prove any of the allegations leveled against the company. The impassioned defense came just before the NYAG surprised everyone by conceding two of its charges at the last minute in a brazen attempt to deprive ExxonMobil of having its name cleared.

Wells called the lawsuit “a cruel joke” for falsely accusing ExxonMobil’s scientists of “cooking up a massive scheme to mislead investors when in reality they were trying to do the right thing by planning for climate change,” according to Bloomberg. “The prosecutors were the real confused party,” said the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which was quick to call it a “parody of a climate trial,” adding that the State’s decision to drop two charges proved “the lawsuit’s dirty political provenance.”

In his closing statement, Wells reminded New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager that ExxonMobil takes climate change very seriously and is working to address it while continuing to play a major role in powering the world:

“The ExxonMobil witnesses are primarily engineers and scientists. That’s what the company is made of. And those persons, they come to work every day for one purpose. To try to bring energy to the world and to this country and try to make sure that all of us when we get up in the morning we have light, in the winter we have heat. And just because there is a serious problem relating to climate change, and we acknowledge that that problem is real and must be addressed, it does not give a regulator the right to bring a meritless case that hurts people’s reputations.”

“Each and every ExxonMobil employee who testified in this case took the stand, took the oath and said very clearly they deny each and every allegation of the complaint and that they had conducted themselves in an honest and good faith fashion. They told you bluntly they did nothing wrong.” (emphasis added)

Wells reminded the judge that the NYAG’s investigation lasted three years and shifted from one legal theory to the next in hopes of finding something, anything, to justify their flagrant abuse of power:

“I have lived with this case, I’ve watched the three year investigation where they changed from theory to theory to theory. I mean it was like, you know, somebody in Moby Dick going after the great white whale. They were trying to get ExxonMobil. We started with climate science. We went to another theory. Went to stranded assets. We ended up with this theory. And then we did something that a lot of corporations don’t do. We did. We said put up or shut up. We said we will try this case, we will not settle this case because we have not done anything wrong.” (emphasis added)

ExxonMobil’s attorney also lit into the NYAG’s witnesses, all of whom failed to prove any of the State’s arguments:

“We were entertained by the New York AG’s two expert witnesses. I say entertained, because Dr. Bartov was entertaining. Somewhat like a skit on Saturday Night Live or something the way he conducted himself. But the two expert witnesses produced by the State. And they had to produce expert witnesses because they had no fact witnesses to support their theory. No fact witnesses. So they had to turn to expert testimony. But the two experts were not credible and they added no value to support the government’s theory of the case…

“They called their first witness, Natasha Lamb. She was supposed to be the most important witness in the case. She was going to lay the foundation to say I am an investor. I read the report. I was misled. I — I believe the two concepts were identical…

“Now, Ms. Lamb on direct, she did her intended job. She said she read the report. She said she thought the two concepts were identical. But even she said it meant nothing to her. She didn’t care. She said she was concerned about big picture issues. Nonetheless, she did provide at least testimony that she read the report and that she thought the two concepts were identical. But then on cross examination she blew up. She blew up and my young partner, Mr. Anderson, destroyed her because he brought out the truth. And the truth was Ms. Lamb is not an investor. She’s not an investor. She said she is not an investor in ExxonMobil stock. She said with respect to her company, her company has never recommended that any of its clients buy ExxonMobil stock.

“She then went on to say candidly when forced that she has a huge bias against ExxonMobil. I interpreted it as a hatred of ExxonMobil. She had written an article talking about the day of reckoning that ExxonMobil is about to confront. And she said this trial, our trial in the article is part of the day of reckoning.

“Now that is a witness. Not only that it’s not credible, but she cannot provide that building block testimony where she is the investor or the representative of investors to the effect that she read the report on page 18 and she was misled because she thought the concepts were the same.”

Having concluded his closing arguments, Wells sat down, only to be shocked like the rest of those in the courtroom and watching online as the State announced it was conceding half of its charges against the company – more than a year after the charges were filed and at the literal conclusion of the trial. He fought the move by the NYAG, and Justice Ostrager has granted him time to see if the NYAG is even allowed to pull such a move.

Wells explained to the court why it was so important that the NYAG not be allowed to withdraw their charges – the company and its employees deserve the opportunity to have their names cleared, to be declared “not guilty.”

“Your Honor, the executives who came to court, some of whom were retired, didn’t have to show up, came here because they wanted to clear their reputations, I submit have a right to either a stipulation that says there was no intentional misconduct or a court ruling. They can’t put us through the whole trial, I submit, and then at the last minute recognize they didn’t prove the claims. And then say I’m going to dismiss it. And that leaves both a cloud over the reputations of the people.”

ExxonMobil also deserves to be cleared of the dropped charges, Wells said, because there are other cases out there (looking at you, Massachusetts), who have copied New York’s claims. If New York is allowed to drop their charges, Massachusetts and others will be able to re-harass the company and its employees all over again:

“And, furthermore, your Honor, we have got, because of this case, and it’s all connected, we have got copycat cases tracking this case word for word in private federal securities cases, books and records cases. Right before we started this trial, as you know, the state of Massachusetts copied the claim word for word. And we have a right, after trying the case, I submit, to either a stipulation that says they didn’t produce evidence to support the claims and a dismissal with prejudice.”