Uh, oh. Committee Ramps Up Investigation, Threatens Use of Compulsory Process Against Members of #RICO20

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
(the following not shown) Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

 

WASHINGTON –  Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today sent letters to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, and eight environmental organizations  reiterating the Committee’s previous requests and threatening use of the compulsory process to obtain documents related to coordinated efforts to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, scientists and scholars of their First Amendment rights and their ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution.

Today’s letters respond to Attorney General Schneiderman’s, Attorney General Healey’s, and the environmental groups’ continued refusal to provide documents that fulfill the Members’ legitimate requests.

The letters to the attorneys general state:

Your office’s written responses to the Committee’s request thus far, as well as those of your fellow “Green 20” attorneys general, are a deliberate attempt to mask the true purpose of your investigation and mischaracterize the Committee’s oversight.  Characterizing your investigation as solely focused on Exxon and its statements is a misrepresentation.  The publicly available subpoenas issued by members of the “Green 20” are overbroad and would, in fact, capture communications between and among scientists at universities conducting federally funded scientific research, as well as between and among numerous non-profit organizations.

Smith’s letters reiterate the requests included in the Committee’s May 18 letters and ask the attorneys general and environmental groups to provide responsive documents and communications on or before July 13 at 12:00 p.m.

If you continue to refuse to provide information responsive to the Committee’s requests on a voluntary basis, I will be left with no alternative but to utilize the tools delegated to the Committee by the Rules of the House of Representatives.  Specifically, the Committee will consider use of compulsory process to obtain responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of your office.

Background

On June 20, 17 Committee Republicans sent letters to 17 state attorneys general reiterating the Committee’s initial request for documents and denouncing the attorneys’ general mischaracterization of the Committee’s jurisdiction in this matter. The Members received several responses that mark the second time the attorneys general refused to produce responsive documents.

Earlier in June, widespread concerns about the attorneys’ general far-reaching legal actions became apparent. Attorneys general from 13 other states wrote a letter to the Green 20 stating the Green 20’s use of law enforcement authority “undermines the trust” invested in the Office of the Attorney General and “threatens free speech.”

In May, the Committee sent letters to 17 state attorneys general and letters to eight environmental groups raising concerns about their efforts to criminalize scientific dissent. Several recipients responded to the Committee’s request by questioning the Committee’s jurisdiction in the matter. Their responses were unfounded. Congress’ broad investigatory power is rooted in the Constitution, and the Science Committee has jurisdiction over “Environmental research and development.”

In March, a group of state attorneys general—the self-proclaimed “Green 20”—announced that they were cooperating on an unprecedented effort against those who have questioned the causes, magnitude, or best ways to address climate change. Members of the Green 20, specifically Attorney General Schneiderman and Attorney General Healey, subpoenaed documents, communications and research that would capture the work of more than 100 academic institutions, scientists and nonprofit organizations that question the administration’s climate change agenda.

Today’s letter(s) to the attorneys general can be found HERE.

Today’s letter(s) to the environmental groups can be found HERE.

###

www.science.house.gov

Advertisements

120 thoughts on “Uh, oh. Committee Ramps Up Investigation, Threatens Use of Compulsory Process Against Members of #RICO20

  1. This group, “Green 20”, is made up of mentally ill liberal/progressives. We can start the process of getting rid of these people once and for all in November. Let’s not blow our chance.

      • Jorge: Please be sure that the entire faculty of More Science High School is cc’d on your report to the DoRD.

      • “Mentally ill liberal/progressives”

        “You’re repeating yourself.”

        I think he’s just screwing up the spelling a bit;

        “Mentally illiberal/progressives”

      • @JohnKnight

        I think most people in their right minds have some degree of liberalism – in the classical sense. However, these so-called liberals, like so-called Climate Scientists, are in fact playing make-believe…In other words, they’re PSEUDOLIBERALS.

      • Are all painters drunks, or are all drunks painters?
        Are all liberal/progressives mentally ill or … ?

      • Perhaps, when Trump is President, there will be a Federal Probe launched into this matter resulting in a Federal Grand Jury inquiry and subsequent subpoenas for the information.

    • The first step in this process is to get rid of Ryno Ryan who supports open borders and free trade with countries that manipulate their currency.

      Paul Nehlen is running against Ryan in the Aug 9th Republican primary. Please go to Paul Nehlen’s website to donate and volunteer to make phone calls. With one click of your mouse, you will be connected to a Wisconsin voter in a free telephone call.

      First Cantor, then Boehner, next Ryan.

      • You’re going to have to get rid of most of the Republican then since most of them, including Trump, are RINO’s.

      • The only way a country can manipulate it’s currency, is by buying US treasuries.
        Do you really want foreign countries to stop financing our debt?

  2. Letter writers are so lame.
    Why bother writing the same letter over again.
    And again and again when nothing will happen.

    • John Silver-
      Paper trail documenting their refusal to work with, or participate voluntarily in the investigation process. The more they refuse to cooperate, the more evidence there is that provides probable cause to take official action against them. Something will happen, but writing letters provides empirical evidence of resistance whereas making a phone call does not. :)

    • JS, you do not comprehend the enormity of this. Smiths committee just trumped the AG’s and NGOs big time in terms on con law. The new letters set out the court precedents. ‘Compulsory process means congressional subpoena, whichmif lawful ( the point of these new letter’s footnotes) leads to criminal contempt of congress for failure to obey. So Congress could then send out its Sergeant at Arms to arrest the NY and Mass AG’s.

      • In theory yes, but how rigged is the system?
        The Comey, Clinton, Lynch affair is not good precedent.

      • Remind me what happened to Eric the Horrible when they issued a contempt of Congress against him. But still, I suppose somebody has to adhere to the law. Certainly the present administration does not even give the least evidence of wishing to do so.

      • The Comey, Clinton, Lynch affair is not good precedent.
        =============
        clinton wanted an advanced copy of the fbi questions so she could prepare. it is a whole lot easier to get the answers right if you know the questions. and of course the fbi would have already vetted the question thru the justice departments, so lynch knew them.

        so whipping boy bill was sent out to collect the questions and remind lynch of all the good things hillary would do for lynch once hillary was elected. the sort of message that can only be delivered in person and in private.

      • ferdberple July 6, 2016 at 5:19 pm

        Do you have any links to this claim that Missuz Clinton got the FBI questions in advance? Or are you speculating?

        /Mr Lynn

      • LE Joiner, do you have any evidence of +2C AGW or are you speculating? Much better question.

      • Streetcred July 7, 2016 at 12:52 am: Huh? Complete non-sequitor.

        I just asked ferdberple where he got the story about Clinton and the FBI questions. I haven’t seen it anywhere else, and if it’s true, it should be widely publicized.

        /Mr Lynn

    • Letter writers are so lame.
      Why bother writing the same letter over again.
      And again and again when nothing will happen.

      Because repeated refusal to comply then becomes part of the official record.

    • Perhaps because they are being told to, sorry, influenced to. Continuing the momentum so to speak.

  3. “In May, the Committee sent letters to 17 state attorneys general and letters to eight environmental groups raising concerns about their efforts to criminalize scientific dissent.”

    Exactly, and that is the fatal flaw in the thinking of those that want to go after ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies. They fail to understand that scientific discourse, and I am speaking as a non-science lay person here, is rooted in examining (through inquiry) and dissenting from a given scientific theory or belief. Is that not what the scientific method is all about?

    These bozos are exposing their ignorance of how scientific discourse works for the whole world to see. And what is most disgusting here is that they probably don’t event realize it.

    • Unfortunately, neither do a large percentage of citizens understand what the scientific method entails. They believe you vote on scientific proof, as noted in the constant references to “consensus”. This is reinforced on many, many websites and by commenters who ask “Who are you to disagree with the majority of scientists?” In many people’s mind, this is all settled and there is no reason to rehash it. Rehashing it is just mean. Getting past that is the problem. Reason often is not enough—they “believe” with all their hearts and will not listen.

      • The problem continues to be that the average person continues to think that you can “prove” a hypothesis when the best you can do is to reject the null hypothesis with a given degree of statistical probability. So long as we continue to fund efforts to “prove” anything we will not advance science. Science is advanced only when people set out to conduct an experiment that contradicts the prediction of a hypothesis and they find reproducible results that do exactly that. When you learn that you do not know something, it is much greater knowledge than thinking that you know everything.

      • ShrNfr,
        That is the best expression of this important principle that I have yet read. Thank you.
        Geoff

      • “The problem continues to be that the average person continues to think that you can “prove” a hypothesis when the best you can do is to reject the null hypothesis ”
        And you asserting this as something you claim is proven, is it?
        At the same time, you fail to notice that the obvious self contradiction must falsify your statement, too?
        Lord save me from yet another wannabe priapus of punditry.

        Here’s some poetry just for you- hum along:
        Some are in above their heads; some just ankle deep.
        Wooly myths in tattered shreds; littering dramatic threads should end up on the compost heap,
        But serve as comfort in the night; to the fearful in their beds after they turn out the light;
        And darkness spreads while reason sleeps…

        You don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

      • gnomish

        If your statement “Anything which is true can be proven” is true, please provide the proof.

      • Javert Chip- no.
        i’ll just let you reduce yourself to absurdity in any attempt to claim otherwise.

        TonyG –
        ““Unicorns do not exist” – I think we would all agree this is a true statement. But you can’t prove it.”
        So sad- I bet you think you’re clever. As soon as you care to bet real money on that, I’ll make you a unicorn and you’ll be cleverly trying to redefine unicorn to save your stupid comment from whirling down the vortex with a whoosh and a gurgle.
        Nobody is ever called upon to prove a negative, duh. Stupid, stupid man.

      • Your statement was “Anything which is true can be proven”. Negatives can be true. But you change the goalposts to THEN say “Nobody is ever called upon to prove a negative”.

        You make a statement that you are called upon to prove, demonstrating the veracity of the statement, and you decline.

        Discussion at this level is pointless. You are either too dense to understand, or intentionally being obtuse.

        Readers can decide for themselves who is the “stupid, stupid man”

      • I remain baffled at the continued claim that one cannot prove a negative–that is, one cannot through syllogism prove the nonexistence of a thing. Nothing could be further from the truth, as anyone who went through 1960’s math classes in California knows well. How many times we set up a hypothetical premise–the presence or absence of a thing to be proven or disproven–and then prove that this premise leads to a conflict with known fact. We call that reductio ad absurdum, where the absurdity is trying to hold both the hypothetical premise (perhaps merely believed to be untrue) and other premises demonstrated to be true. I cannot understand why people just give up, rather than arguing that X, Y, or Z isn’t true, when they can demonstrate that X, Y, and Z cannot be true.

        Now a “cryptospecies” may be another matter altogether, because it is apparently based on so many undemonstrated prior premises that the entire proof, though logically simple, may be large enough to be impracticable.

        However, back to science. If a scientist were to propose studying the physiology of unicorns on no existing, tantalizing, or even suggestive physical evidence that there is something to study makes the whole thing risible: You do not have to disprove the existence of the unicorn through logic, you can just withhold funds till the first living specimen arrives in the lab. Same result, though the withholding would have been obviated by wholesale rejection of the proposal in the first place, with much guffawing.

      • Yay for Don Newkirk.
        (I was at Granada Hills High in those years- and confirm your statement)
        The resolution of the bafflement lies in the concept of mimicry.
        Just as the climate fakirs clothe themselves in the trappings of the ‘scientists’, complete with lab coats, clipboards, pencil pockets and supercomputers- for the purpose of obtaining by fraud the respect a scientist earns by merit- so do the wannabe pundits bandy words with multiple syllables in order to fraudulently obtain respect that’s deserved by those who actually think logically.
        The adaptive significance of mimicry is part of natural selection.
        While it is tempting, for purposes of humor to compare the example of interest, here, to the way, in some species, the back end of a butterfly has evolved to resemble its head, deceiving a predator both about where to strike – this particular mimicry is not about predator defense.
        The more apt example is that of the angler fish.
        They do it to trick the unwary and ignorant so they can take advantage of them in some way.
        It’s just another predatory mechanism – except when a species is making prey of its own species- the proper term is cannibalism.

    • Gnomsh:

      “Unicorns do not exist” – I think we would all agree this is a true statement.

      But you can’t prove it.

      • You’re playing an absolutely beginner’s game. Here’s how this plays out:
        You say there’s no such things as unicorns and assert it can’t be proven.
        I produce something I call a unicorn.
        You alter your definition of ‘unicorn’ until it is something which ‘can not exist’.

        To understand your degree of epistemological comprehension, which is what you use to evaluate truth,
        I’ll start with the single axiom ‘existence exists’.
        There is nothing simpler and it’s called an axiom because it is self evident, i.e., you couldn’t do it, say it or think it if there were no IT or no YOU.
        Existence exists – sadly, in this epoch of global blather where every idiot tells you what to thing yet has no clue how to think, this passes for advanced knowledge – arcane freakin wisdom – and is anything different now? yeah- the population of mystics has increased. The population of people who talk cuz they secretly aspire to paid celebrity status that give them tweets to die for…
        That can just remain an incomplete sentence.

        You, while not having a very solid grasp of The Axiom, nevertheless are thrilled (Thrilled, I tell you!) over you recent discovery that the contrapositive of the proposition must also be true. Many WoW.
        Yes, if existence exists, then non.existence does not exist. You discovered the law of implication. Enjoy your epiphany.
        Not you are prepared to join the community of children over 4 years old who can speak as well as you.
        Don’t know any? Your loss- your problem. Not mine. Shall I see if there’s room on my Ark for a couple of fox? Nope, not.

        How did you do that? Did you figure out that there was a fundamental alternative in the universe, existence or non.existence?
        Was it something Shakespeare said?

        Consciousness is identification. The act of asking yourself ‘what is it?’ is built in, innate- ever wonder how that came to pass?
        For a living creature, ‘existence or nonexistence’ has application, let’s say.
        But really- it’s life or death. Get some.

        And logic is the practice of non-contradictory identification. So you have learned that you can use it a little but you are finding infinite loops of logic that puzzle you and this is the very first in epistemology 101. Congratufreakinlations whiz kid.
        Now that you’ve discovered logic, you take delight in the puzzles that your tentative grasp of reason can not yet resolve.

        Use that logic. Logic is non.contradictory identification. That means falsehoods (infinite loops included) are not allowed to be built on.

        Your clever little diaper dance with the unicorn- the thing that can’t exist- because logic – that’s not cute. You harm nobody but yourself.
        With full appreciation of the irony, I recognize the ‘adult version’ of Princess Precocious. You don’t yet know the first thing.
        I don’t care if it triggers you into your safe space.

  4. Too bad my windows cursor doesn’t change to the middle finger when I hover over the picture at the top.

  5. Hi from Oz. Is this starting to look like John Galt vs the Looters? (Ref: Ayn Rand’s increasingly prescient Atlas Shrugged) Good work, Rep Smith.

  6. Popcorn time!!

    A certain non-traditional Presidential candidate should include appropriate remarks in campaign speeches supporting the First Amendment and castigating the patently unconstitutional actions by these AGs and Green “fellow travelers”

    With any luck, “Rule of Law” will become a campaign rallying cry.

    Take note, Mrs “Pretty in Pink”

  7. This is a big deal. Two prior committee document requests uniformly rejected. Today’s letters in the footnotes spell out why the Oversight committee has lawful jurisdiction, so the previously rejected requests were legit requests. In a nutshell, two reasons. 1. Much of the controversial research was ultimately federally funded, so skeptical refutations are federally relevant to research oversight going forward. 2. Science committee is concerned about science, and supression of same by AG threat is anti-science. Lots of legal precedents in the various letter footnotes to establish legitimacy of those two ideas. See especially the letwr to the AG collaborating institute founded by Naomi Oreskes. (Smith’s staff has done its homework.) That lays the groundwork for lawful compulsory congressional subpoenas, with failure to obey comprising criminal contempt of congress.
    Smith is maybe planning to send send Congress’ Sargeant at Arms to arrest the AG’s of NY and MA? He has the constitutional authority to do so under Constituion Article 1 section 10.3 and 8.18. And the political theater would be priceless in an election year given the Dem policy platform.

    • Ristvan: Always interesting to read your understanding of what is going on here given your legal background.

      Was wondering if I could ask a question here: Is it legal for the state AGs here to have colluded with environmental groups targeting ExxonMobil (and maybe others) prior to going forward with their legal action against ExxonMobil?

      I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is illegal for the EPA to collude with environmental groups when formulating or considering environmental regulations. Is that correct? If so, does some similar law apply the state and federal AGs when considering legal actions against the targets of environmental groups?

      Thanks in advance.

      • CD in W. Short answer (not having researched all applicable legal precedents in depth) is NO. And specifically under 18USC241, originally intended to apply to southern state AG’s and the Ku Klux Klan in re African American civil rights.
        AG’s must act independently based on ‘law’. And must exercise prosecutorial discretion, unlike the Baltimore AG in the Freddy Grey case against Balrimore police officers. (Comey’s decision re HC is an example of prosecutorial discretion, whether you agree or disagree with his specifics.) To take legal inputs from and ‘conspire with’ NGO’s like UCS comcerning CAGW is patently unlawful.

      • ristvan:

        Do you think this story has legs (IE an investigation might go somewhere) or is it just a “brush back” to discourage further fishing expeditions by the AGs, that will just reveal some embarrassing emails?

      • PA, IMO the AG’s are trying brush back, and it is not working. If Congressman Smith’s stance holds, then there are likely severe consequences for the AGs. And I think they already know that.

      • Is it legal for the state AGs here to have colluded with environmental groups…

        The word “collude” makes it, by definition, an illegal action in this situation. Substitute “consult” or “contact” and your case begins to unravel.

    • hi ristvan what is your take on this

      “Specifically, the Committee will consider use of compulsory process to obtain responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of your office.”

      I mean the last part. “control of your office”
      That is a pretty big stick. If the committee was to do it; it would set off shock waves.

      michael

    • Ristvan: “Science committee is concerned about science”.

      WR: This is the fundamental thing. The law has to treat all persons equal. So the AG’s have to treat all equal, because they are the final guards of the law.

      Or, should be.

    • Gee, what could be wrong with the science advisor maintaining his emails at a warmist/activist think tank to avoid FOIA disclosure?

      • Jeff Alberts on July 6, 2016 at 7:21 pm
        I guess you missed Anthony’s post a couple weeks back asking for some restraint, and not to post off-topic stuff.

        Jeff, off topic?
        You want to get back you’re former live.

      • Jeff Alberts July 6, 2016 at 7:21 pm
        I guess you missed Anthony’s post a couple weeks back asking for some restraint, and not to post off-topic stuff.

        Director Holdren of the OSTP was one of the recipients of the RICO 20 letter and may have had a hand in coordinating it.

        And had a server at a Green/Warmunist NGO to hide his emails.

        And this is off topic on a thread about the RICO 20? How exactly? Enlighten us.

    • I guess you missed Anthony’s post a couple weeks back asking for some restraint, and not to post off-topic stuff.

  8. Honest. I didn’t intend to get caught. With no intent you can’t prosecute and have to let me go. Signed ‘Hillary’. Oops, I meant ‘The Rico 20’

    • Thanks William…I’ve been trying to come up with something like that all day
      ….

  9. hang about –
    you want to use the “law” to get communications from private institutions because you object to them having the temerity to want to use the law to get communications from another private institution.
    Weird or what!

    • These NGO’s have publicly conspired with several AG’s to deprive individuals of their First Amendment rights. It’s in the public record. That provides the prima facie case for the committee’s right of investigation.

    • you want to use the “law” to get communications from private institutions

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/05/court-rules-emails-from-white-house-science-advisers-personal-account-subject-to-open-records-law.html?intcmp=hplnws
      The court said the agency does not necessarily have to disclose the emails, but must search through them and determine whether any are subject to public disclosure requirements. It sent the case back to the lower court to make that determination.

      Media organizations including The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post and the American Society of News Editors have backed the lawsuit.

      Your statement is factually incorrect. Holdren did a Hillary and it is believed, used the NGO mail server to attempt to do an end run around FOIA.

      They have grounds because the NGO server is believed to have used for some of his official communications. His communications are covered by FOIA. The court specifically found that the NGO had no control of his emails (this really depends on the intelligence of the system administrator – if I was sys-ad it wouldn’t be true).

      Since he apparently didn’t notify anyone that he was using a private server, no one knows what is on it. The lower court was ordered to leaf through the e-mails and figure out if they are covered by FOIA.

      We should make use of private servers a felony and that would end this question. You can make an exception for officials who have a legitimate reason, get approval, make public notice they are using a private server, and have it certified that it meets Federal retention and security guidelines.

      The obvious reason for a private server is to dodge FOIA and hide backroom dealings with green interests (like the AGs did).

      We might as well make dodging FOIA a felony for Federal officials. That is the only way this nonsense will come to an end.

      The Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy was using the e-mail server at a green think tank. If you don’t think that smacks of corruption, then I guess if Trump’s Director of OSTP gets his e-mails from an oil company server you will give him a pass as well.

      As the court said:
      Sentelle [Judge David Sentelle] said the ruling serves the purpose of federal open records laws, which help the public keep track of what the government is doing.
      “If a department head can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to by the simple expedient of maintaining his departmental emails on an account in another domain, that purpose is hardly served,” he said.

  10. I would have liked to see some kind of trial go forward, especially if it compelled the green20 to defend their broken science. I don’t think the Exxon route would work as they simply have to plead corporate self defense. I’m sure they examined both sides and came to the conclusion that the alarmist claims of the IPCC were most likely greatly overstated and that the proposed mitigations only hurt their bottom line, increased costs for their customers and would have no discernible effect on the climate. Why would anyone or any corporation want to harm themselves by echoing overstated claims of a catastrophe? It would never even get to trial.

    • The goal is to cost them a LOT of money defending themselves, gain access to donors conservative sites and to intimidate skeptics.

  11. What has always has me just leaving me breathless and stunned is the complete arrogance of these government ” officials “, from elected to non elected ones. Everything they (and the hired staff, from the AG level on down, to the guy that cleans the o(r)ffices), is paid for by you and me. And still they have that arrogance to deny every one of us access to the information they have and we PAID for.
    The hypocrisy, the … sorry I am just lost for words. How can these people sleep at night?
    There has to be a better way to speed up this process. And now a few minutes ago the AG of the DOJ has told us that Clinton will not be prosecuted. Beyond believe!

  12. The Democrat Party has a plank in their political platform that supports and encourages legal actions similar to the RICO20, to silence CAGW skeptics.

    The Democrats are officially against the First Amendment. They have gone off the deep end.

  13. FBI Director Comey will appear before Congress tomorrow to answer questions about Hillary Clinton’s email law breaking.

    It ought to be good tv. Comey’s political position (not guilty) on the Hillary Clinton email scandal is completely opposite of his legal position (guilty), and it will be interesting to watch him try to explain the contradictions in his statements.

    • I think you are conflating the issues just a little. Hillary is still on the hook for any emails she claimed weren’t FOIA, she is just off the hook for using a non-departmental system. It is up to others to address the FOIA concerns, and then, perhaps, bring -that- can of worms back to be judged. Or did I miss something?

      • Hillary is off the hook for using the personal email server.

        Hillary is still on the hook for possibly (actually it is certain) that she committed perjury by not telling the truth in a Congressional hearing. And I think Hillary’s lawyers and assistants should not feel too relaxed about the situation as they may be guilty of multiple violations of the law.

        And Hillary still has the Clinton Crime Foundation matters to deal with. FBI Director Comey would not comment when asked about how he was dealing with this issue. If anything puts Hillary in jail, it will be the Clinton Crime Foundation.

      • No special prosecutor was assigned because the Obama administration is corrupt, and the Republicans did not push for one.

        The Obama administration got just the outcome they wanted by doing it this way.

      • The Republicans probably did not bother pushing for one because they knew it was a lost cause, and that it would end like it did with Bill: look at the bratty Republicans going after the poor President just because they do not like him. It would be cast as political and go nowhere. How many of the independent agency watchdogs have managed to get prosecutions during this administration? IRS? VA? EPA?

        A few weeks ago some of the Killary stuff was leaked to the press. My theory is that someone (or some people) from the FBI was hoping to get enough public outrage to force the higher-ups’ hands. The rank and file tend to be less willing to overlook wrong/illegal behavior than the top brass, probably because the rank and file know THEY would be subject to the law. Unfortunately, the leaked info did not really do much.

        It is sad and infuriating that Killary and her rapist husband are so corrupt and evil that the general public no longer bats an eye when confronted with evidence of their wrongdoing. People just brush it off as business as usual, almost expected. This attitude is becoming prevalent with everything, corruption is seen as so common that not being corrupt is abnormal.

        The apathy is part of what allows this nonsense with the RICO and AG nonsense. Delay, delay, delay, and wait for the public to become jaded to the particular issue or case. Once the details become fuzzy or forgotten by most, recast the case/issue/whatever as purely political and pretend to be a victim. Play your cards right and you can get the case sat on for a few years. Just ask Mann.

    • That is not his position. It is that gross negligence in handling secrets under the old Espionage Act has only been prosecuted once in 100 years. No prosecutor would attempt in under these circumstances. All the other secrets acts require scienter ( knowing intent to violate). That, the FBI could not find evidence of.

      • Hillary demonstrated intent to violate. She instructed her aids to remove the classified headers from messages, so they could be sent over a non-secured fax machine.

        Setting up the server for her use in the first place is intent to violate. That would be one piece of the case that would be presented to a jury, as a means to prove intent, along with numerous other examples.

        But by failing to prosecute, the proving of intent was nipped in the bud.

        As Juliani said, Proving intent is one of the hardest things there is to do, but you don’t allow that to stop you from prosecuting if you have the elements of intent in hand. And with Hillary, the elements are in hand. Comey just chooses to ignore them.

  14. Remember: First, foremost and always Attorneys General are politicians, not attorneys in a layman’s sense. The head of the Democrat Party, President Obama, has decreed that CAWG is an indisputable fact. The orders have gone out to every Democrat Party politician and beholden government bureaucrat that they are to do everything in their power to support the meme and punish those in disagreement. Additionally, coordination with green NGOs is institutionalized across all levels of government.

    In their zeal, Democrat AGs forgot the Supreme Court is not yet theirs. We can anticipate frantic (disguised and dissembled) back-scrabbling by the AGs, and court reprimands for their overreach.

    Dave Fair

    • “Democrat AGs forgot the Supreme Court is not yet theirs.”
      Not yet – maybe – However, I think the risk with Supreme court is well described by Noah Feldman:
      “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. ”

      The main problem as I see it is that the oath taken by the Green 20 state Attorneys General, The United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the President seems to be a deceit:
      “I, AB, 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.”

      By the actions of the Green 20 Attorneys General, and by the failure to take action against the Green 20 by United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the President, they have all demonstrated no will, and no intention to defend the United States Constitution against domestic enemies. Ironically, in this case it seems that the domestic enemies includes themselves.

  15. While I think it is laudable Senator Smith is ‘threatening’ the AG’s and RICO 20 with compulsory process, it’s ultimately meaningless as long a Democratic administration is in power. Even if Trump wins the election, it’ll likely still be meaningless. Contempt of Congress doesn’t amount to much more than finger wagging and “Tsk, Tsk, shame on you”, for people in the AG’s position and the folks that support the AG’s.

    • McCarthy smiles contently from above.

      The Venona Cables vindicated McCarthy. The Communists had so many agents at the Commerce department they told their handlers to stop recruiting them.

      So yeah, he is probably smiling.

      • Read Diana West’s new book, American Betrayal. (I think that is the title). The list of communist agents in FDR’s administration is truly shocking. As is FDR’s reaction to being advised of them.

      • M. Stanton Evans is a more formidable figure here than Diana West. (In fact I suspect she based a lot of her work on his, although I haven’t verified this. I’ve also read reliable sources that say that she tends to be a bit OTT, which Evans never is – which makes his work all the more devastating.) His and Romerstein’s book, Stalin’s Secret Agents, describes the Roosevelt administration’s Communist problem in gory detail. Quite an eye opener if you’re not familiar with any of this stuff.

  16. They better watch out, defying a lawful demand by a Republican congressman like Lamar Smith. If they keep it up, he may just hold his breath until he turns blue.

  17. By my understanding, it is possible to file a civil suit under the various Civil Rights Laws, one of which bankrupted a major branch of the KU Klux Klan. One of the NGO’s subpoenaed by the Green 20 should file such a suit against the green NGOs and the Green 20.

  18. If this actually goes anywhere, the MSM will report it as “Anti-Science Republican Senators Attack AGs Seeking Truth from Exxon”

    Taking bets now.

  19. If I had drafted the letter I would have included a caution against destroying documents or other matter that could be subject to the compulsory disclosure.

  20. You sort of get to wondering here, and the climate thing in general but – where does legitimate taxation end and racketeering start?
    I’m thinking of a ‘protection’ racket where you, your business whatever pay over money to ensure no ‘accidents’ happen – typically you pay this money to gentlemen of Italian extraction.
    So what’s going on in this climate thing if we’re all not being coerced into paying over money (higher tax, skyrocketing electric bill etc) in order to prevent something nasty (to the weather) from happening – something that is in no way certain to happen – apart from in the minds of those collecting all this money.

    That’s a protection racket is it not?
    So where *does* tax end and racket start?

    • You’re raising some interesting possibilities. This is the kind of thing that makes me see AGW as a gift to the ‘foes of Mordor’ – if they have the balls to take advantage of the situation.

  21. So Hillary holds documents classified as secret on an unsecured computer in a non secure facility.

    She then sends said documents to ‘all and sundry’ where she can not know or care about the security of these destinations of these classified documents.

    She allows ‘all and sundry’ to gain access to her insecure computing facility.

    She allows classified documents to pass over insecure networks.

    She does not demand a robust backup procedure for her IT infrastructure.

    I think Wiki Leaks has tighter IT security than Hillary!

    And some want her for president?

    • Hillary also kept all that top secret information on her home server even after she left the State Department. She only started erasing things after the Congress found out she had the server, during the Benghazi hearings.

      If not for that, Hillary would be skipping merrily along with nobody the wiser, and her attempts to hide what she was doing by using a personal server would have been successful.

  22. “Specifically, the Committee will consider use of compulsory process to obtain responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of your office.”

    He will have to follow through – or the citizens of United States will soon realize that free exchange of thoughts is not something you get and keep for free.

  23. 34,000 deleted E mails ? That’s a lot of “personal ” E mails phew ! Can u imagine if some Joe middle management had done what has been proven by the FBI . Fired and likely in jail . Of course they probably would never have seen “confidential ” E mails to share.

  24. Who had eyes on those” personal” E mails ? Who deleted them ? Who hacked them ?
    Who sent any top secret or classified documents directly to a personal e mail account ?
    Were they told to ?

Comments are closed.