Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF) executive director Lee Wasserman, the instigator of the New York attorney general’s (NYAG’s) investigation and lawsuit against ExxonMobil, seemed disappointed to learn the limits of his attempts to use public officials to prosecute his enemies after the New York Supreme Court cleared the company of any wrongdoing. As the Rockefeller-funded activist network turns its attention to a similar lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts attorney general, it’s worth investigating whether Wasserman’s wealthy anti-fossil fuel foundation has tried to exert a similar degree of influence on the Massachusetts attorney general’s investigation-turned-lawsuit.

New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager ruled in favor of ExxonMobil in the People of the State of New York v. ExxonMobil last Tuesday. The case was the culmination of a years-long effort by climate activists, public officials and wealthy foundations to hold the company “accountable” for what “Exxon Knew” – most of it funded by the Rockefellers.

The RFF and Rockefeller Brothers Fund have bankrolled nearly every aspect of the “Exxon Knew” campaign, including academic reports, favorable media coverage, activist groups, and even the lawyers suing energy producers. In an op-ed ahead of trial, RFF’s Wasserman admitted to funding the litigation campaign:

“New York is just one front in a legal struggle against the fossil fuel industry, one that the organization I direct has been involved in by financing legal advocacy groups representing plaintiffs in two other lawsuits against the oil giant.” (emphasis added)

Records show that Wasserman was actually in close and frequent communication with the New York attorney general’s office as many as nine months before the NYAG subpoenaed ExxonMobil, around the time then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was said to have begun his inquiry into the company.

The emails between Wasserman and Schneiderman’s office were said to discuss “specific companies regarding climate change.” The NYAG’s office has refused to release the actual content of those emails.

After this information emerged, Wasserman took to the New York Review of Books to come clean:

“It is up to government officials, not public interest advocates, to determine whether ExxonMobil’s conduct has violated any state or federal laws within the relevant statutes of limitations. Recognizing this, the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF) informed state attorneys general of our concern that ExxonMobil seemed to have failed to disclose to investors the business risks of climate change. We were particularly encouraged by Schneiderman’s interest in this matter, because New York’s Martin Act is arguably the most powerful tool in the nation for investigating possible schemes to defraud.” (emphasis added)

Wasserman engaged all the people on his payroll to mobilize and activate ahead of the trial, creating an echo chamber to mislead the public on the trial’s core issue and distract from the NYAG’s weak case.

The actions of Wasserman and his activist network fall in line with the strategy they developed in January 2016, when they met at his office to discuss how to “delegitimize” ExxonMobil and “creat[e] scandal.” Their coordinated rush to engage in damage control amid the fallout from Justice Ostrager’s decision stems from the same strategy document:

“Does this group want to establish a rapid response and coordination structure to react to new research, revelations and legal developments as they happen? A higher level of coordination with a war room, joint social media, and coordinated organizing and media pushes?” (emphasis added)

After the trial, when the New York Times asked about the NYAG’s failure, Wasserman responded: “Regardless of how the company communicated its accounting practices to the public, Exxon’s multidecade climate deception has helped push humanity toward a desperate moment filled with suffering, death and grief. No court decision can change that reality.”

It’s easy to sense his frustration and disappointment. Perhaps the Times should have asked him if he was disappointed by the poor return on his investment.

Unfortunately, Wasserman’s displeasure with the verdict in New York is unlikely to deter him from pursuing new avenues of attack. Indeed, it’s likely he is in touch with Maura Healey, which may be why she refuses to turn over her communications with a Rockefeller-funded lawyer who pitched her on a probe of ExxonMobil back in 2016.