Senators ask DOJ to end 'abuse of power', 'prosecutorial misconduct' in persecuting climate skeptics

Via press release:

Senators Demand DOJ Cease Investigation Into Opponents of President Obama’s Energy Policies

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), and David Vitter (R-La.) today sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, demanding that the Department of Justice (DOJ) end its use of law enforcement resources against political opponents of President Obama’s energy agenda.

“These actions provide disturbing confirmation that government officials at all levels are threatening to wield the sword of law enforcement to silence debate on climate change,” the letter reads. “As you well know, initiating criminal prosecution for a private entity’s opinions on climate change is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and an abuse of power that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.”

The letter goes on to demand that Attorney General Lynch confirm that all investigations into any private individual’s views on climate change end within 14 days and promise not to initiate any future such investigations.

“Freedom of thought and inquiry is at the very heart of liberty,” Sen. Cruz said. “Sadly, the Obama administration and its allies in state attorney general offices across the country are threatening to use the power of government to intimidate and ultimately silence companies and researchers who do not agree with the government’s opinions about the allegedly harmful effects of climate change and what should be done about it. This is an abuse of power and a direct assault on the First Amendment. The Obama Justice Department should immediately cease any further consideration of such action and should instead do everything in its power to protect the freedom of thought of all Americans.”

“Threatening prosecution of those who dare to challenge the most outlandish scaremongering by climate activists strikes at the very heart of the Free Speech protections on which this nation was founded,” Sen. Lee said. “Issuing subpoenas to harass researchers and academics with whom they have communicated, as some state attorneys general offices have done, shows a basic disregard for Americans’ Freedom of Association. The public expects us to prevent such abuses, not perpetrate them. It is our responsibility to contain the inevitable chilling effects by calling for an end to any consideration by the Department of Justice of such harassment at once.”

“I have serious concerns any time that the Department of Justice uses its power to repress constitutionally protected speech and open dialogue on any public policy issue,” Sen. Perdue said. “Given the unprecedented politicization of the Obama Justice Department, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s oversight responsibilities have become more important than ever before. There is no place in our democracy for politically-motivated investigations by the Department of Justice.”

“Unnecessary government intrusion of private citizens’ lives is an unfortunate characteristic of the reign of the Obama Administration,” Sen. Vitter said. “It is contemptible for the Justice Department to target and threaten individual American citizens and private or non-profit organizations in pursuit of its far-left environmental agenda.”

Read the letter in its entirety here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 26, 2016 9:20 am

I hope Cruz makes nice with Trump so both can work together to put the scientific method back into climate science.

Sun Spot
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 26, 2016 10:37 am

Trumps a New York Liberal, he’ll turn on climate scepticism as soon as he has fished you in.

Reply to  Sun Spot
May 26, 2016 10:54 am

How do you know that?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Sun Spot
May 26, 2016 12:43 pm

Climate change is about govt power and more tax money. There is every indication that a President Trump would enjoy having those. He has no governing hilosophy that would stop him from expanding govt or raising more taxes upon which to wheel and deal.

Reply to  Sun Spot
May 26, 2016 1:48 pm

@Sun Spot
Not to mention, him and the Clintons have always been very chummy with one another. This may sound conspiratorial, but I’m almost inclined to believe that at some point Trump will hand the presidency over to Hillary should they both become nominated…
I think most are voting for Trump just to spite the regressive left which has almost become akin to the religious right. Which I would like to call the Columbus Effect: The only way to hit far right is to go far left!
Even if Trump becomes president, there is no way he’s going to bring back jobs to the US. Foxcon (the main manufacture of Apple products) just replaced 60000 workers, half their employees, with robots and soon Mcdonalds and other fast food chains will be replacing their workforce with robots since it’s cheaper than paying someone $15 an hour.
Either way, the US will inevitably become an even bigger welfare state regardless of who becomes president.

Reply to  Sun Spot
May 26, 2016 2:46 pm

Just about everything he has said regarding politics prior to his deciding to run for president as a Republican.

Reply to  Sun Spot
May 26, 2016 2:48 pm

Dog, with the rate debt is building up, if the US becomes an even bigger welfare state, that will merely serve to advance the date of the coming collapse by a few years.

Reply to  Sun Spot
May 26, 2016 3:57 pm

Nah, it just means we’ll become another ‘failed’ western nation that’s gone full retard by adopting democratic socialism as the main prerogative in addressing any and all issues…Such as Sweden and the like.
However, there’s light at the end of tunnel since many of those nations are decades ahead of us in their march towards economic collapse. Thus when the world bares witness to their demise it will give the US and others a chance to reflect and pivot in to another direction that will hopefully prevent us from ruining ourselves…

Reply to  Sun Spot
May 26, 2016 5:13 pm

I don’t buy that for a minute. It is a very sophomoric statement.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Sun Spot
May 27, 2016 4:54 am

I saw Trump talking about energy last night. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he spoke a lot of truths about energy – and the EPA, which seems to be completely out of control.
So, as things stand right now, I’d say Trump is several million times better than Clinton, who, like Obama, appears to be ignorant and obsessed by climate change.
Hopefully this time next year we will have President Trump and Prime Minister Boris Johnson (who has made sceptical comments in the past). Perhaps this would help to turn the tide of climate change madness that is engulfing the world.

Tom O
Reply to  Sun Spot
May 27, 2016 8:48 am

I question your “knowledge” of what IS Trump. I think Trump is a business man, and as such, thinks like a person that intends to succeed with what he wants. Neither “liberalism” nor “conservatism” intends successful completion of anything. But one thing seems obvious. We already know what Clinton is like from her years as “First Lady” and her following years of “servicing” in the political arena. I will take an unknown quantity and hope before I will accept a person that is diametrically opposed to what the Constitution and US philosophy stands for. the nation did that with Obama in 2008, and it didn’t work out very well, but then again, I couldn’t image what a McCain presidency would have led to since he did – and still does – represent disaster for the nation. so if I have to play “Russian roulette,” please hand me the gun with only ONE bullet in it instead of the one that doesn’t even have an empty chamber. Besides, I am sure Obama is going to pull the rug out from under her and the Dems will run Biden her place. Wouldn’t even be surprised if Biden then selected Obama as HIS VP.

george e. smith
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 26, 2016 11:37 am

These Senators need to make it clear to abusive tyrants like Loretta Lynch that they could be held personally liable, for such criminal misconduct as she is pursuing.
It is common to provide for treble damages for victims of willful legal persecution, whether it is patent law or any other blatant misuse of legal procedures.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  george e. smith
May 26, 2016 12:47 pm

Personal liability would be very, very difficult to establish.

Reply to  george e. smith
May 26, 2016 2:00 pm

Trump just gave a press conference (CNN played the whole thing) where he opposed Hillary’s and Sanders’ anti fracking positions. He says he wants to eliminate the EPA’s regulations on the coal industry. He wants to approve the Keystone pipeline. He mentioned solar and windmills and that they are heavily subsidized and that they are bird killers. I hope he has some advisers that will help him stick to the “Global Warming is a Hoax” mantra…I was a Cruz supporter, but where do you go now? At least he seems to grasp the essentials of the skeptics concerns. I hope he sticks with it. I can’t support Hillary or Sanders policies on CAGW….It will be an interesting election cycle here in the USA…

Tom O
Reply to  george e. smith
May 27, 2016 8:56 am

The two party system guarantees that there is never likely to be a successful movement of impeachment. The only reason that it might have worked against Nixon was the weakness of the Republican Party in the Senate, and that a good part of them were elected in name only. Since virtually all senators are fully owned by the same people that own the administration, no one in the administration that is following its policies will ever get more than a wrist slap and a pat on the back when no one is looking.

Dudley Horscroft
May 26, 2016 9:20 am

How much notice will the DOJ take of this?

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
May 26, 2016 9:31 am

Maybe a lot more if Trump gets in early next year. My guess there may be a flurry of indictments in H1-17 from the IRS to EPA to former Secretary of State’s .. and maybe even an obstruction of justice or two in the DOJ itself.

May 26, 2016 9:32 am

(y) 🙂

May 26, 2016 9:46 am

Anthony, may I have copyright permission to use this as a stand alone story at The Daily Bail? The title will be the same linking it directly to WUWT and only use a few lines from the story and give attribute to you.
Please email me and or leave a reply here if you wish.
Thank you for any consideration.
[Reply: Please post requests like this in Tips & Notes, where they’re more likely to be seen by Anthony. -mod]

May 26, 2016 9:50 am

This would certainly be more effective if there were some democrat signatures on it. I’m with them, but we’re not going to be able to fix our reality unless we’ve got parties on both sides of the political / ideological fence entering the ring and arguing for free speech and to let science work itself out.
There will come a day when all of us believe the same with regards to the power of CO2 to change our climate. Hopefully that day comes sooner than later. The only way we are going to get closer to that goal is 1) to not silence the voices of those speaking in dissent of the popular opinion and 2) to foster increased collaboration between parties on both sides.

Ralph Short
Reply to  Abram
May 26, 2016 12:45 pm

Abram, the problem, as I see it, is there are no “democrats” in Congress. They are either progressives/socialists or marxists. Therefore, the values they hold do not include freedom of speech, except for those that agree with them.

Reply to  Ralph Short
May 26, 2016 2:49 pm

Look what the Democrats did to Joe Lieberman. For the sin of not hating Bush, he was run out of the party.

Reply to  Abram
May 26, 2016 1:43 pm

I agree with your sentiment, but I’m afraid Ralph is right. If they couldn’t get at least some of them to see that weaponizing the IRS against political opponents set a bad precedent what makes you think they’d remove the ideological blinders for something like Glowball warming persecutions?

Reply to  TomB
June 1, 2016 6:39 pm

Trump for President, Hillary for Prison – 2016.He is the only one who is going after the IRS.

John Robertson
May 26, 2016 9:59 am

When your whole argument is based on falsehoods.
You have to try; :Silence! Respect my authority”.
Sometimes you get lucky and no one calls your bluff.
This ploy has been working for the “progressive” Movement for years.
Go Gang Green.

May 26, 2016 9:59 am

This DOJ helps average Americans understand the plight of Chinese rights activists in standing up to the power of the state apparatus. Well attempts at standing I suppose.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 26, 2016 11:23 am

Not much difference between Chinese Gov’s communism and Obama’s socialism. Obama has demonstrated that with his use of executive powers

May 26, 2016 10:22 am

The only real solution to this sort of lawfare is to vote the perpetrators out of office. Go Trump (holding my nose)!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 26, 2016 11:20 am

Take the position that it isn’t a vote for Trump, it is a vote against the Democrat.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 26, 2016 11:29 am

Trump is not politically slick, it’s a change, plus he’s the first to admit the US media is broken, something none of the others dare admit.
He also admits America needs to fix itself, again he is right.
You need a presence to address the damage the left has done, and Trump is not an establishment conservative.
He also wings much of his interviews, something the democrats dont do, all their interviews are tailored by liberal media for them.
The fact Trump is this popular despite Liberal media’s attempt to destroy him shows Americans are sick of the Liberal left.
Truth be told, the same people who donate to Clinton donate to Trump, so while there will be bones thrown to the followers of both sides, the power money behind politics wins no matter what.
But if Trump breaks up this Climate cack, reigns in the EPA and purges NOAA and NASA of the nitwits, it is a massive step in the right direction, 10s of millions who would suffer under Clinton will not have to
Out of the liberal fire and into the libertarian conservative frying pan, though in this case the pan is on low heat.

george e. smith
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 26, 2016 11:57 am

So just who is that “establishment conservative” you referred to.
I’m not aware of any conservative in the establishment power group.
PS Conservative is NOT a hyphenated word. You are either conservative, or you are not conservative.
Conservative is a “species”; NOT a genera with 57 species to choose from.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 26, 2016 2:59 pm

You can be conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Trying to declare that only those who believe exactly as you do can call themselves conservative is a good way to limit the number of people who are willing to support you.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 26, 2016 3:00 pm

An establishment conservative is someone who believes that as long as you aren’t as liberal as the Democrats, you qualify as a conservative.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 26, 2016 5:48 pm

Presently I identify as a right leaning liberal socialist meaning I believe in a mixed economy that values the best of what socialism and capitalism has to offer. In other words, I think socialism is best applied to ensuring basic human rights (food, shelter, a basic ‘public’ education) but capitalism is best applied to ensuring that small businesses, the backbone of our communities, stay afloat through hard times such as economic and/or natural disasters. In no way do I support democratic socialism in any shape or form as Lenin and Stalin has taught us that it fails miserably.
The point I’m trying to make is that I think most of the liberal media has become psuedoliberal since I believe most conservatives are presently more liberal, classically speaking, than those who identify as democratic liberals. It’s as if democrats have abandoned their core liberal values and have replaced it with authoritarian socialism.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 26, 2016 10:14 pm

Dog, the problem with calling such things as food, shelter, and education a “right” is that you can demand that the government provide those for you—typically such rights are spelled out in the constitution (Kenya’s constitution is an example; the old Soviet constitution was another).
And with these “rights” comes the question—who’s to pay for them? Obviously, someone else. But what gives anybody the right to require that someone else pay for their food, shelter, and education?
Some have called health care a right, yet there are far more pressing needs in our lives; some you’ve listed. Start calling everything we should work for ourselves a “right” and the system eventually collapses. Venezuela is a current example and there are other countries about to fall off the socialist cliff.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (actually, the original word was “Property) is what we consider our rights in the US; everything else should be up to the individual otherwise there is some form of theft involved.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 27, 2016 9:57 am

Please be careful what you refer to as “basic human rights”. I must agree with RockyRoad. The second sentence of the Declaration of Independence reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And, defined/stated in the Bill of Rights, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, to keep and bear arms, to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, to a speedy and public trial, and of trial by jury. There is nothing in there about any right to shelter or education. Any thing past those listed in the Bill of Rights and Constitution are not rights but optional benefits provided by state or federal legislatures to appease certain segments of the populace, or more commonly, by the individual legislators and other elected officials to buy votes.
As far as the government guaranteeing any ‘right’ to food, I would have to agree with an Alabama congressman (I don’t remember his name) who proposed back in 1964 during discussions of the foo-stamp program, what was probably the most cost effective implementation. That was to make beans and rice free for everyone. No one would starve but their would be a strong incentive to improve your lot in life. It would also have cost far less than the current food programs.
While there is no Right to “a basic ‘public’ education”, that function is left to the individual states according to the U.S. Constitution. Those states, and their citizenry, have chosen to provide K through 12 free because, following a quote of, or at least attributed to, Thomas Jefferson: “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” As far as the Federal Government providing free college as currently demanded by many student activists, they (the Fed’s) are on the verge of or, as some would say ‘already have’ totally screwed up our colleges and universities. This has become quite apparent with the move toward research and away from the education of students, tuition inflation that surpasses even that of health care, and the Parkinsonion growth in administrative bureaucracy. As Pres. Dwight D Eisenhower said in his farewell address: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. ” It’s a shame that he has been proven correct in his prediction.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 27, 2016 10:20 am

Dog, the problem is that nobody can agree as to what a “basic human right” is. The definition manages to grow every year.
Beyond that, you are fighting against human nature. Most people, once their basic needs are met, are quite content to stay at home and do nothing.
Hence the ever growing welfare state that you claim to oppose.
Socialism, even in small doses, never works. The only time it appears to work is in countries that have gotten rich thanks to capitalism. The richer the country, the longer it can stand against the rot of socialism. But socialism always destroys it in the end.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 27, 2016 10:23 am

That get’s into what people call negative versus positive rights.
Negative rights limit what you can do to me.
Positive rights are things that you want other people to do for you.
Positive rights are nothing more than a belief that you can force other people to work for your benefit, not for theirs. We used to call that slavery.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 28, 2016 11:30 am

I agree. When you said “…you are fighting against human nature” you, as they say, “hit the nail on the head.” I find that practically all heartfelt liberal programs designed to help the poor seem to be based on a belief in the ultimate goodness of mankind. You continued with: ” Most people, once their basic needs are met, are quite content to stay at home and do nothing” which is why most programs intended to aid the poor have the opposite effect. One of the best example of this was President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society. That set of programs is slowly being acknowledged as one of the main causes of the destruction of the family in the black, and now the white, communities and thus also the increases in both poverty level and extent.

May 26, 2016 10:35 am

After, the plateau of temperature, they are still trying to use the save the planet theme to justify their actions.
Facts don’t enter into it anymore.
Wasn’t the DOJ severely chastised recently for lying to the court. The judge ruled that the lawyers must attend ethics classes in person for the next 5 years. 2 hours per week or month, from memory so it stands to be corrected. He insisted by court order that they cannot attend online or by proxy but must attend in person.
Look at the way they present things. NASA just announced we had crossed the 1.5C threshold in February.
Ooga Booga we are all doomed. But trying growing a crop under ice.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Ben of Houston
May 27, 2016 10:04 am

Ben, looks like MSN took down the page you referenced…. :<) Makes you wonder… don't it?

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Jack
May 26, 2016 12:19 pm

The more I read this, the more incredible it seems. If I tried anything of the like, I would be rightfully fined and arrested. If anything, the ethics training and DOJ corrective actions seem impossibly lenient give then first 25 pages
Also on page 28, the judge states openly that he can’t disbar the attorneys involved since they are all from out of state, but he is throwing them out of Texas. Their individual states can (and should) take action on this.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
May 26, 2016 2:06 pm

Ben of Houston wrote: “The more I read this, the more incredible it seems. If I tried anything of the like, I would be rightfully fined and arrested. If anything, the ethics training and DOJ corrective actions seem impossibly lenient give then first 25 pages”
Yes, if lawyers had deliberately lied in my court, those lawyers would no longer be allowed in the court, because why would you want to listen to a liar again? One lie is enough. That’s all it takes. For lawyers, or anyone else.
I would then refer them for ethics prosecution and disbarment.
Deliberate lies in the court room, are a direct threat to justice. Allowing deliberate liars to continue to practice law is a travesty of justice.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Ben of Houston
May 27, 2016 2:08 pm

The introduction to that court order is fantastic!
“An exchange between two characters from a recent popular film exemplifies what this case is, and has been, about:
FBI Agent Hoffman: Don’t go Boy Scout on me. We don’t have a rulebook here.
Attorney James Donovan: You’re Agent Hoffman, yeah?
FBI Agent Hoffman: Yeah.
Attorney James Donovan: German extraction?
FBI Agent Hoffman: Yeah, so?
Attorney James Donovan:
My name’s Donovan, Irish, both sides, mother and father. I’m Irish, you’re German, but what makes us both Americans? Just one thing . . . the rulebook. We call it the Constitution and we agree to the rules and that’s what makes us Americans. It’s all that makes us Americans, so don’t tell me there’s no rulebook . . . .
Whether it be the Constitution or statutory law, this entire case, at least in this Court, has been about allegiance to the rulebook. In its prior orders concerning the actual subject matter of this case, the Court never reached the relative merits or lack thereof of the Defendants’ 2014 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Directive. The question addressed by this Court was whether the Government had to play by the rules. This Court held that it did. The Fifth Circuit has now also held that the Government must play by the rules, and, of course, that decision is now before the Supreme Court. It was no surprise to this Court, or quite frankly to any experienced legal observer, that this question would ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Consequently, the resolution of whether the Executive Branch can ignore and/or act contrary to existing law or whether it must play by the rulebook now rests entirely with that Court.”
“None but a people advanced to a high state of moral and intellectual excellence are capable in a civilized condition of forming and maintaining free governments, and among those who are so far advanced, very few indeed have had the good fortune to form constitutions capable of endurance.”
– John C. Calhoun
“Every generation gets the Constitution that it deserves. As the central preoccupations of an era make their way into the legal system, the Supreme Court eventually weighs in, and nine lawyers in robes become oracles of our national identity. ”
– Noah Feldman
There is something rotten in the government of United States of America. I think this is going to get much worse before it gets any better. I fear this will have to get really bad before the people wakes up – nobody knows what will then happen.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Ben of Houston
May 27, 2016 3:49 pm

That court order is a must read!
“Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word “Justice.” Suffice it to say, the citizens of all fifty states, their counsel, the affected aliens and the judiciary all deserve better.”
“The duties of a Government lawyer, and in fact of any lawyer, are threefold: (1) tell the truth; (2) do not mislead the Court; and (3) do not allow the Court to be misled … The Government’s lawyers failed on all three fronts.”
“The failure of counsel to do that constituted more than mere inadvertent omissions—it was intentionally deceptive. There is no de minimis rule that applies to a lawyer’s ethical obligation to tell the truth.”
“This Court has found no authority to support the concept that it is ever ethical and appropriate conduct to mislead a court and opposing counsel; nor has the Government provided any authority to that effect. That being the case, the Court finds no need for a comprehensive dissertation on the duty of candor and honesty because counsel in this case failed miserably at both. The Government’s lawyers in this case clearly violated their ethical duties.”
In a defective system it will be unethical to clean out all those who have acted unethically, however it will be ethical to say: From now on we all act ethical – those who don´t will be cleaned out. Because – that´s what great leaders do – they lead.
Come on “little girl from North Carolina” – it´s the time to grove up.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Ben of Houston
May 27, 2016 3:53 pm

Oh my – should have been “grow up”.
Where is that damned edit button?

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Ben of Houston
May 27, 2016 5:48 pm

Sorry for filling up this thread – but this court order is such a great read:
“To say that the Government acted contrary to its multiple assurances to this Court is, at best, an understatement …. This Court finds that the misrepresentations detailed above: (1) were false; (2) were made in bad faith; and (3) misled both the Court and the Plaintiff States.”
“The misconduct in this case was intentional, serious and material. In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.”
“Regardless of how unprofessional the Department Of Justice’s conduct may have been, this Court will not strike the Government’s pleadings.
And this is a beauty:
“The Government’s counsel told this Court that if it sanctions the misconduct of the Government’s attorneys in a monetary fashion, those sanctions would be paid by the taxpayers of the United States.”
I´m laughing beverage through my nose 🙂
“Thus, the taxpayers of the 26 Plaintiff States, who have been wronged by the misconduct, would have to pay for: (1) the original fees, expenses and costs of their own attorneys; (2) a large percentage of the original fees, expenses and costs of opposing counsel; (3) the fees, expenses and costs of their own counsel caused by the misconduct; (4) a large percentage of the fees, expenses and costs of the opposing side caused by the misconduct; plus (5) a substantial portion of whatever sanction amount this Court would levy. Stated another way, the Court would be imposing more costs on the aggrieved parties, and the Justice Department, which is actually responsible for this mess, would go unscathed.”
“There would be no corrective effect and no motivation for the Government’s lawyers to act more appropriately in the future. Since the taxpayers would foot the bill for any fines, fining counsel would not make the Plaintiff States whole, serve as a deterrent to any future misconduct, or act as a punishment for any past transgressions. Therefore, this Court will not impose monetary sanctions on the defense counsel.”
And now I´m laughing beverage through my tear channels – or am I crying? I´m not sure – maybe both!
“Moreover, counsel for the Government should not be rewarded for their past misconduct. There is certainly no indication that counsel will not repeat this conduct.”
“Clearly, there seems to be a lack of knowledge about or adherence to the duties of professional responsibility in the halls of the Justice Department.”
“The need to tell the truth, especially in court, was obvious to a fictional young Tommy Mara Jr.
in 1947, yet there are certain attorneys in the Justice Department who apparently have not received that message, or more likely have just decided they are above such trivial concepts.”
“While this Court does not hold the Department of Justice attorneys to a higher standard than it would attorneys practicing elsewhere, it would hope that the Justice Department, itself, would seek to maintain the highest ethical standards. The Justice Department purports to represent all Americans—not just those who are in favor of whatever actions the Department is seeking to prosecute or defend. The end result never justifies misconduct. That is the stance the Justice Department takes daily in thousands of its other cases, and it is no less applicable here.”
“Therefore, this Court, in an effort to ensure that all Justice Department attorneys who appear in the courts of the Plaintiff States that have been harmed by this misconduct are aware of and comply with their ethical duties, hereby orders that any attorney employed at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. who appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course.
“Further, this Court’s Order is requiring no more than what the Justice Department should have been, but obviously is not effectively, doing already. This Order will merely ensure compliance with the legal standards already placed upon Justice Department attorneys.”
“The Attorney General of the United States shall appoint a person within the Department to ensure compliance with this Order.”
“Therefore, the Attorney General is hereby ordered to report to this Court in sixty (60) days with a comprehensive plan to prevent this unethical conduct from ever occurring again.”
“Finally, whatever it is that the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility has been doing, it has not been effective. The Office of Professional Responsibility purports to have as its mission, according to the Department of Justice’s website, the duty to ensure that Department of Justice attorneys “perform their duties in accordance with the high professional standards expected of the Nation’s principal law enforcement agency … Its lawyers in this case did not meet the most basic expectations. The Attorney General is hereby ordered to inform this Court within sixty (60) days of what steps she is taking to ensure that the Office of Professional Responsibility effectively polices the conduct of the Justice Department lawyers and appropriately disciplines those whose actions fall below the standards that the American people rightfully expect from their Department of Justice.”
That is very clearly a defective part of the government of United States. The part which should ensure the high professional standards of Justice attorneys have failed. How many more defective parts of the government are there?
“The Court cannot help but hope that the new Attorney General, being a former United States Attorney, would also believe strongly that it is the duty of DOJ attorneys to act honestly in all of their dealings with a court, with opposing counsel and with the American people.”
Come on “little girl from North Carolina” it´s time to lay aside all the unimportant things, It´s time impose upon government the ethical standards we teach our children.
And let us never forget the man to live up to: Andrew S. Hanen, United States District Judge

Reply to  Jack
June 1, 2016 6:46 pm

Socialism only works,until you run out of other peoples money.

May 26, 2016 10:49 am

While I applaud the Senators for standing up for Liberty, nothing will come of this while the emperor occupies the White House. He’s still got almost 7 more months & Im afraid we ain’t seen nuttin yet.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  TonyP
May 26, 2016 11:31 am

They could start impeachment procedures now to slow the kenyan down for 7mths

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Stephen Richards
May 26, 2016 11:37 am

Does anyone know why his head is a mass of scars? Look it up, his head scalp neck scars everywhere. Was he in a car wreck or something, no president has ever been such a mystery

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Stephen Richards
May 26, 2016 11:55 am

kenyan? lol Indonesian. Don’t let the hair fool you 😀comment image

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  TonyP
May 26, 2016 11:31 am

True, if he can go to war on his own volition, that’s the epitome of a Kingship
Obama and Clinton have done so much damage to America at home and abroad.

george e. smith
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
May 26, 2016 12:01 pm


May 26, 2016 10:58 am

If you are looking for abuse of power by the sovereign look at eminent domain condemnation procedures. The rest of the bureaucracies are just catching up.

Reply to  halftiderock
May 26, 2016 11:36 am

Trump tried to use eminent domain to expand the parking lot for his casino.

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2016 2:13 pm

Trump said about an hour ago that he would approve the Canada/American pipeline if he is elected. Trump added that the pipeline would go 10 feet without eminent domain.
Eminent domain can be abused, just like all government powers, but it is essential for modern society.

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2016 2:14 pm

would *not* go ten feet without eminent domain.

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2016 3:02 pm

And Trump is one of the people who have tried to abuse eminent domain.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2016 3:02 pm

Perhaps Trump will be our “Right Guard” and knock a little BO out of the white house

Will Nelson
Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2016 4:35 pm

“…would go..” is more poetic. This is, “… would go 10, maybe 12 feet”.

Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2016 10:24 am

BO’s leaving the White House next January, regardless of who is elected.

Reply to  halftiderock
May 26, 2016 1:19 pm

Look up the community condemned via the Supreme Court’s abominable ruling several years ago. After all the crap the local government pulled so they could get more tax money from new owners, the favored company never built anything on the seized land. All those people were forced to sell their homes, and the stupid project did not even happen. I worry that we will see similar results with the current policies being floated. How many people will be harmed before the AGW idiots finally lose?

May 26, 2016 11:30 am

Get ready folks. This election will turn into the climate election in some circles. I am preparing to show as many people as possible the truth about CAGW this summer. I hope that all who can do the same!

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist level 7
May 26, 2016 11:43 am

I think this letter will end up the same place as the earlier one demanding the IRS stop delaying/denying 401c3 status for conservative organizations.

May 26, 2016 12:32 pm

The term ‘climate skeptic(s)’ is very misleading. How can anyone be skeptical of climate? Weather and Climate is all around us and is driven largely by solar and geological events. Rather than fall victim to the term ‘climate skeptic’ perhaps we should champion the term “Climate science realist” or some other term that denotes the use of scholarly research and logic to draw a intelligent and factual observation.

Reply to  TeeWee
May 26, 2016 4:45 pm

Don’t accept their use of “climate change, stick with global warming

David A
Reply to  Xyzzy11
May 27, 2016 3:29 am

Please stick with CAGW, not just global warming. CAGW is the most scientifically accurate acronym of the theory and the justification for global change and “sustainable” energy taxes.

Reply to  Xyzzy11
May 27, 2016 10:25 am

You got that right. Without the catastrophic part, none of what they are trying to do can be justified.

Reply to  TeeWee
May 26, 2016 6:59 pm

I certainly agree that it is unwise to use “climate skeptic”. “Climate science realist” can be used by anyone . . I suggest using something like “climate alarm skeptic”, so as to make it clear what one is actually skeptical of.

May 26, 2016 1:00 pm

just watched “Concussion” last night…hiding science for money…(and your chicks for free).

4 Eyes
May 26, 2016 1:33 pm

If this ramps up further then someone may be asked to prove in court that climate change sceptics have “bad” motives and therefore the first thing that they would have to prove in court is that climate change is happening.

Reply to  4 Eyes
May 27, 2016 7:39 pm

“therefore the first thing that they would have to prove in court is that climate change is happening.”
AFAIK, they would have to prove a much stronger proposition: that nobody can fail to measure that climate change is happening, that there is no possible reasonable doubt on any data, that nobody could reasonably determine that there are significant uncertainties.
They would first have to define that measurement of climate change is, how to do it, and to show that there is agreement on that.
Contrast with cigarettes and cancer!

Science or Fiction
May 26, 2016 1:55 pm
“I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God.”
Loretta Lynch can now choose to become historical. She can choose to say that: I don´t care who´s right and who´s wrong about the issue at hand, but I took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies – it´s unconstitutional to use the power of government to intimidate and ultimately silence companies and researchers who do not agree with the government’s opinion – department of Justice will not allow such misuse of governmental power.
But that will take some cojones.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
May 26, 2016 6:34 pm

Science or Fiction,
Ha-ha! She wasn’t picked for her honesty, she was picked for her loyalty. And that doesn’t mean loyalty to the U.S.A.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  dbstealey
May 26, 2016 9:42 pm

Yeah – that is now becoming very clear to me. The oath is a deception.
“Every generation gets the Constitution that it deserves. As the central preoccupations of an era make their way into the legal system, the Supreme Court eventually weighs in, and nine lawyers in robes become oracles of our national identity.”
– Noah Feldman

May 26, 2016 2:23 pm

From the article: ““These actions provide disturbing confirmation that government officials at all levels are threatening to wield the sword of law enforcement to silence debate on climate change,” the letter reads. “As you well know, initiating criminal prosecution for a private entity’s opinions on climate change is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and an abuse of power that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.”
I like the part about “rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct”.
I don’t think there is any doubt about it, these AG’s are using the power of their office to take people’s free speech away from them. The proof: The AG’s have no case against those they are harrassing, witness the VI AG backing off as soon as he was challenged.
The New York AG has a more complicated case against Exxon, but it still boils down to harrassment, because they can’t prove Exxon lied about CAGW because there is no CAGW, and good luck to the NY AG in trying to prove it.
I expect the NY AG will be the only one left standing in the near future. And he is a real partisan, so don’t expect any flexibility on his part unless he has no other option. Which he doesn’t. But he can drag it out for a long time.
But after Trump is elected, things will change for the better in a numbers of areas. So the clock is ticking.

Science or Fiction
May 26, 2016 2:49 pm

The letter finish with:
“In addition, we ask that you explain what steps you are taking as the federal official charged with protecting the civil rights of American citizens to prevent state law enforcement officers from unconstitutionally harassing private entities or individuals simply for disagreeing with the prevailing climate change orthodoxy.
We expect your prompt attention to this matter.”
I look forward to the reply. If the American people hadn´t become so used to governmental misconduct, and if skepticals hadn´t been so civilized – there would have been riots.

May 26, 2016 4:36 pm
stas peterson BSME, MSMa, MBA
May 26, 2016 5:51 pm

Many have the completely wrong impressions about the millions in campaign contributions. It is more like millions in ” shakedown money” extorted by the politicians in charge of an overweening and powerful State.
I moved to Redmond to work for Bill Gates at Microsoft. He didn’t believe in making large campaign contributions to either party and said so..Meanwhile the politicians said as a chief of Microsoft must contribute ts “fair share”.
Suddenly Microsoft was being prosecuted against the Sherman Antitrust Act. For a few months Gates held out. Then he made contributions to both parties and mysteriously the Monopoly prosecution suddenly disappeared.
So on the surface it appears that Gates and Microsoft made big contributions, but in reality it was Shakedown and Protection money just like the old Purple Gang of Detroit.

Reply to  stas peterson BSME, MSMa, MBA
May 26, 2016 6:30 pm

So you are saying that Trump will kill the Keystone pipeline, Increase the EPA influence. Give more subsidies to wind and solar. And increase taxes and regulations on small businesses. I don’t believe he will do that……Not sure about corn bio fuels I hope he changes his mind on that one…

Reply to  stas peterson BSME, MSMa, MBA
May 27, 2016 3:54 pm

If the Sherman Act wasn’t applicable to the well documented and repeated abuses of Microsoft, then you might as well suppress it.
That MS was allowed to escape after they lost is a demonstration of the deep corruption of “Justice System”.

%d bloggers like this: