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.
###
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.
The shredder has probably been working overtime since March.
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.
When do the legal consultants arrive from the Hillary camp?
Lerner’s beat them to it.
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.
“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.
We were discussing Hillary’s “intent’ to break the law. I contend there is enough evidence to convince a jury of her intent to skirt Federal computer security laws.
Here’s a link to Trey Gowdy’s conversation with FBI Director Comey, where Gowdy lays out some of the elements that would prove Hillary had the intent to break the law:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/07/hillary-clinton-trey-gowdy-destroys-james-comey-over-intent/
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.
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 ?