Wow. In the middle of the battle, the warmists erroneously send up a flare from their position, drawing undue attention to the target. I rather expected a moribund outcome from this investigation, maybe a couple of embarrassing quotes, maybe a hotheaded Santeresque comment by Dr. Michael Mann about Dr. Pat Michaels, but that was about it.
Now, with them trying to retroactively change the law as a way to head off the investigation, it makes me wonder if maybe there’s really something profound there in those communications after all. Bad move fellas, you just made the Q Score for this story triple.
From the Daily Progress:
By Bryan McKenzie
Two Democratic state senators are proposing to change state law to thwart Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s efforts to investigate a former University of Virginia professor’s research on global warming.
The proposed legislation would repeal sections of Virginia law that give the state’s attorney general authority to issue civil investigative demands, similar to subpoenas, to gather documents in relation to a civil investigation conducted by the office.
The bill is in response to efforts by Cuccinelli, a Republican, to investigate possible fraud by former UVa professor Michael Mann in relation to five taxpayer-funded research grants between 1999 and 2005.
The senators, A. Donald McEachin and J. Chapman Petersen, will meet this morning with Del. David J. Toscano, D-Charlottesville, at the Capitol to discuss the legislation.
======================================
Read the article in full here
h/t to Bishop Hill
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The suit was already filed, so changing the statues should not be allowed to effect the suit. (Ex post facto) Oh, they are Democrats. Laws need not restrain them.
It does sound a drastic response if there is nothing to hide unless there is general consensus that (irrespective of the present investigation) the Attorney General is too powerful and democracy or the rule of law requires his power to be curtailed.
This type of action potentially has dramatic unintended consequences and if the law is amended, it may be that some time down the future when there is a Democrat Attorney General, that the Democrats will rue the day that they made such amendment.
Indeed an adjustement…
So, essentially, them dumb a a a of many holes think they can essentially make fun of Mr Cuccinelli and the law?
Seems like they don’t know their place. :p
Given that the process is already underway, wouldn’t this new law be moot anyway? Also, i’d guess it will take too long, Cuccinelli’s investigation will be done before such a law would be effective. Lawyers’ take?
Mark
Something that has been bothering me about this…who is there to ensure that any and all emails are given up as requested? What’s to stop them from permanently deleting any really bad emails? What kind of oversight is used in a case like this?
It’s not the crime; it’s the coverup. Oh, wait, ITS BOTH: two, two, two deceits in one….
I don’t swear often, but that is [snip snip].
Can you imagine what would have been charged if NY had tried to neuter Spitzer like that? What could be so sensitive that is not already covered by national security laws?
Here’s hoping they succeed. Can you imagine if the investigation is thwarted by democrats changing the law. Wow. that would be the gift that keeps on giving
Just hand over the e-mails, simples. Unless you’ve got something to hide?
Shades of Richard Nixon. Or the Catholic Church. “Nothing to see here – and we’ll damn well stop you from seeing it!”
I dunno, it seems consistent with climate science M.O. If you don’t like what happened in the past, change it. ;->
What skeletons do they have in that UVa closet to make them go to such great lengths to hide some emails?
Really makes one wonder!
Some of our Brit politicians may not be “Brain of Britain” quality but I’d like to think they’re not as plain stupid as those two numbnuts.
Oy. Talk about Law of Unintended Consequences if they get something like that through.
I’m reminded of Missouri just after the Civil War. The state legislature passed a law giving immunity to all Union soldiers for any act committed during the war. Confederate soldiers, not so much.
Wow, if they succeed, Virginia will become a safe haven for fraudsters and criminals. Any Attorney General there won’t be able to have any sort of investigative power to fish out criminals. Then again, maybe this new retroactive law would only apply for climate research related crimes.
Mark is right. It almost certainly wouldn’t affect this case. I chalk it up to a reaction against what in their eyes looks like a witch hunt.
Didn’t I see that there is some sort of new FOIA in Virginia that requires that they turn over this stuff without the need of the Virginia AG ? … merely by asking ? … and they can’t say no ?
The probe never had a chance anyway. Show me one example where these folks have been convicted of anything. They will continue to get away with this sort of thing until the present group of US and world leaders are displaced. If not, more of the same.
From a purely legal standpoint, it’s insane – they seriously propose to strip the State Attorney General of ALL of his civil investigative power, just to try to cover up for one of their pals? Fortunately, Republicans control the House, so this is going nowhere.
But still, you’re absolutely right, Anthony – for them to make THIS move is astounding – it is a move of absolute desperation. This is now getting even bigger than the Global Warming fight – I now (as I think many of us do) suspect that there has been *Massive* Financial Fraud carried out by Mann, sanctioned by the University, and possibly covered up by payoffs to “friendly” politicians in the State Legislature.
Why so much fear at these documents coming out? Because I think several quite well connected people face a serious chance of going to jail because of what’s in them!!!
richard verney–No they will just change the law again. Since when have the Democrats lived by the same laws they expect others to live by? That said, hopefully some judge will have the fortitude to uphold the current law which applies in the current case. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
David L says: “What skeletons do they have in that UVa closet to make them go to such great lengths to hide some emails?”
Obviously, enough evidence that the whole AGW con may unravel world-wide. The Warmists will throw money at this problem until it goes away. They have a budget of billions, and much of it is YOUR money, anyway. “To infinity and beyond!”
In most situations legislation that purports to influence judicial outcomes dies. If the Judiciary Committee lets it out, its precedent for the next one. Where does it stop?
The legislation also puts the legislature in the position of judging the merits of the case. This is utter politicization of a judicial issue. If it is introduced, I think it dies a quiet death.
Ed Moran. 4.26pm
Really! Chris Huhne possibly and any number of the previous administration who believe that government can spend more than they raise in tax – ah, i.e. all politicians.
But I know what you mean.
One wonders exactly how they would create the carve-out. “CIDs can not be issued for _______”. How would they fill in this blank.
“…academic research of any kind”. Hmm, so that would say you can’t investigate things like the recent autism fraud.
“…any acts undertaken by employees of state funded universities”. Gee, that sounds kinda broad. So someone who embezzles money from the purser’s office could’t be investigated.
“…academic research related to climate science”. Ah, that’s the ticket.
Or maybe “…academic research related to climate science or any other subject that the majority party deems to be off-limits”. Yeah, that ought to work. I don’t see anything undemocratic about that. /sarc (for Anthony’s benefit).