Bloomberg’s attempt to install climate lawyer stooges thwarted in Virginia

From GAO:

GAO Praises Virginia General Assembly: 1st Legislature to Strike at Bloomberg Attempt to Capture AG Offices

(Washington, DC) — Today the public interest law firm Government Accountability & Oversight, P.C. (GAO) congratulated the Virginia General Assembly for becoming the first to act in response to Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to capture attorneys general offices to pursue his ideological agenda.

Bloomberg established a “State Impact Center” to hire and place “Special Assistant Attorneys General” (SAAGs), with the statutory authority of AGs, to promote policies of interest to Bloomberg. Incredibly, in applying for these privately funded attorneys — and public relations services promoting his own activism — Virginia AG Mark Herring offered to use his office “to advance the agenda represented by” the Center.

Thankfully, in a mid-day vote on Sunday adopting the Commonwealth’s budget, the legislature restricted monies appropriated to the OAG, precluding the arrangement Bloomberg’s Center has used to place 14 SAAGs in 10 states and the District of Columbia – so far.

The “Virginia OAG insists to the Court, as it has for weeks to media outlets, that it never actually participated in the Bloomberg-financed SAAG scheme”, said Chris Horner, a Virginia taxpayer and attorney for GAO in the FOIA suit Horner et al. v Herring. “This claim not only makes no sense in our case, but indicates OAG can’t get its story straight”, Horner continued. “After making the extraordinary offer to use the office “to advance the agenda represented by” Bloomberg’s group, AG Herring even publicly claimed “I’m glad Virginia is participating in its fellowship program”.

That this vote by the General Assembly was even necessary is itself incredible given that not one but four provisions of the Virginia Code already prohibit this unprecedented arrangement — as GAO has argued in ongoing litigation against Herring’s office for documents related to this scheme.

Today’s vote is a statement from Virginia’s elected representatives that Bloomberg’s money can’t buy a donor’s way into Virginia law enforcement. GAO applauds this vote by the Virginia General Assembly, while wondering, what’s wrong with the rest of these legislatures?

Government Accountability and Oversight, a 501(c)3. Source


From the Washington Times:

Virginia bill blocks Bloomberg from embedding climate lawyers in attorney general’s office

Virginia has become the first state to crack down on billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg’s effort to embed within the attorney general’s office privately funded lawyers dedicated to pursuing climate change litigation.

The Republican-controlled General Assembly inserted an amendment in the 2019 biennial budget requiring those working for the attorney general to be state or federal government employees — with certain exceptions — and paid solely with public funds.

Last week’s addition to the $100 billion budget bill, which goes to Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, for his signature, would appear to nix any effort by Attorney General Mark Herring to bring on climate lawyers paid for by the Bloomberg-funded State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at the New York University School of Law.

Cheering the amendment was Chris Horner, senior fellow at the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute who hailed Virginia as the first state to take action against what he has called “private mercenaries” engaged in “law enforcement for rent.”

“Sunday’s vote is a statement from Virginia’s elected representatives that Bloomberg’s money can’t buy a donor’s way into Virginia law enforcement,” Mr. Horner said in a social media post. “We applaud this vote while wondering what’s wrong with the rest of these legislatures.”

Full story here

Advertisements

49 thoughts on “Bloomberg’s attempt to install climate lawyer stooges thwarted in Virginia

  1. As the US finally has an Attorney General in fact, perhaps some action against the states that have accepted Bloomberg’s money for their “special prosecutors”? I wonder whether RICO or the KKK Act would be more appropriate.

  2. It’s disappointing how many people fail to see how dangerous it is to subvert political processes. How would liberals feel if special AGs were being placed with an anti-abortion agenda? Suddenly they would see the downsides.

    • Indeed. Harry Reid going nuclear on presidential judicial nominations is a prime example. At the time McConnel warned him that dems would “regret this”. They never consider the possibility that what they use to get their way today will end up being used against them tomorrow.

      • The Demos, living in their bubble of hubris, believed their own lies that demographic changes had changed the US electorate so much in the last decade that no Republican would ever again be elected to the White House.

        Trump has shaken the Democrats to the core. As they now see how easily Trump in 2 years dismantled the 8 year Obama agenda, put in 2 conservative SCOTUS justices (and probably a 3rd by 2020), and is now reshaping the lower courts with moderates and conservative judges.

        This is why the Democrats are now actively trying to subvert the constitution’s Electoral College process with their clearly unconstitutional National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
        https://preview.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/blue-states-band-together-looking-to-bypass-electoral-college/

        If they ever try to pull this off in a real election, the Federal Courts will strike it down as patently unconstitutional. But something being unconstitutional has never stopped a true Progressive.

        • The Constitution does not say how the electors of each state must vote, only that each elector vote for two persons one of which shall not be an inhabitant of the same state as themselves. When you vote in a Presidential election you are NOT voting for the candidate you are voting for the slate of electors that will most likely vote for that candidate. Electors are free to vote for whomever they like. While the State gets to determine how electors are chosen, it is normal for each party to assign a slate of electors based on their loyalty to ensure that their party’s candidate receives the proper electoral vote. It is entirely correct for the State to require the electors of their state to vote in accordance with the outcome of the popular vote in that State or to allow a split vote in accordance with the split in the popular vote. However, I do not believe that a compact between states that requires their electors to vote in accordance with voting results outside their state could be upheld.

          • I understand the concept of Unfaithful Electors. In 2016 Texas had 2, one voted for Kasich, and 1 registered a vote for Rand Paul. Washington State had an elector register a vote for an Indian Chief, and Hawaii had a elector vote for Bernie. Unfaithful electors is not the issue, it is a State Legislature attempting to subvert the ballot results of their voters, and also ignoring the role of the US Congress to approve Compacts.

            However, this Compact suffers two major deficiencies.
            The first, and probably insurmontable requirement, is the requirement for Congress to approve any and all interstate Compacts and Agreements. (Article I, Section 10, paragraph 3 of Constitution)

            The second major deficiency of the Compact is what the 14th Amendment says about what happens to a state that abridges the right to vote in any election for choice of the President and Vice President. If the state legislature ignores the vote results of its resident-citizens, then “the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of citizens shall bear to the whole number of citizens of voting age.”
            (Amendment XIV, Section 2.)

            That means if a State ignored its voters in the state’s Presidential election to chose its Electoral College electors it could lose half or more of its members of House of the Representatives. Really. That is the legal reading of that section.

          • You are correct Joel and I agree with you . My post was more of an informational one because there are many outside the US who do not understand how our electoral system works, for that matter far too many inside the US do not understand it either.

          • (Amendment XIV, Section 2.)

            Not only that, since Amendment XIV section 5 “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” all congress would need to do to nullify the compact is to write the appropriate legislation to enforce Amendment XIV upon the states regarding electors.

  3. Bloomberg money is everywhere in the State and local elections these days. He is quite an activist and spends a lot of money to place elected AG’s in every state as well, which makes them beholden to him in they succeed in getting elected. This kind of big money coming into the state’s law enforcement officer will eventually drive legislative initiatives to make the AG an appointed position, much like the US AG is by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

    Precisely because state AG’s are political animals, like VA’s AG Herring here, is why they have to become professional politicians to seek the job. This attracts a certain kind of person, and strongly dissuades other potential prosecutors with higher levels of integrity from running a political operation. Making the State AGs appointed positions is necessary to put professional prosecutors in the office, and not a politician worried about elections and future elections (like for governor/president, aka Kammi Harris).

    Political observes say he is going to commit over $500million to the 2020 election cycle (assuming he doesn’t run for President). This money will be spent on elections across all levels of government, from Mayors and state positions and US congressional races.
    https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/michael-bloomberg-500-million-donald-trump/2019/02/13/id/902485/

    As far as Billionaires and their money, here in Arizona, Bloomberg money is now financing retired Navy Captain, former astronaut Mark Kelly’s 2020 run for US Senate. Bloomberg via PACs kick starting his campaign with a big $ infusion, which makes him the far away odds-on favorite to get the Dem nomination, no other Dem will have the kind of cash that Kely now has to challenge him effectively in the primary. While Kelly seems like a normal guy with a good head, he’ll have to tow the line in on Bloomberg’s nanny-statism, anti-gun agenda. He’ll be running against returned AF Colonel Martha McSally.

    This is how Billionaires are buying like Bloomberg are openly buying their way into political office without running themselves.

  4. OT a bit but did anyone see 60 Minutes last night about the climate law suit by the children? I hope there will be a story here about it.

  5. What is it about the leftists and their eagerness to use the legal system to get what they can’t get through the political system?

    • Power. Raw power.

      If they can’t get the People to deliver it to them at the ballot box via alarmist stories, a false security in exchange for liberties, they’ll try to take it away any way they can.

      Weaponizing the states’ prosecutorial powers against political enemies has been a rising tactic on the Left. Culminating with the Mueller Investigation as the apex of this pursuit of power using prosecution of political opponents (Trump associates) to overturn an election that didn’t go their way. We saw it vividly under the Holder/Lynch DOJ era with selective prosecution of D’nesh Dsouza, the Mohammed Parody video maker after Benghazi consulate attack, and the DOJ bank shakedowns to funnel the settlement fines as a dark money cashflow to Democrat supporters.

    • maybe its some psychological deal, going back to 2nd and 3rd grade, when their teachers redefined “fair” over and over again in order to give the little snowflakes an advantage to bring them up to par with the normal kids.

    • MarkW, the ends always justify the means with leftists. It doesn’t matter what they have to do (attempt to destroy a person with false allegations? no problem) as long as they get the outcome they want.

    • ocasio:

      “Apparently using present technology means I can’t fight for new jobs, investing in infrastructure, & renewable energy.”

      what new jobs is she fighting for???
      (we already know what new and existing jogs she is fighting to eliminate!!!)

      This overconfident nitwit is going to go down in flames.

  6. Oregon’s constitution outright forbids it. As bad as Oregon politics are, it’s constitution is solid (wrt guns especially).

    There are governors office e-mails voicing concerns and stating the need for more clarity on how to get around it (which is not possible).

    Rather than trying to work with Bloomberg, the Oregon AG should be trying to figure out how to prosecute him for trying to subvert the State constitution.

  7. The Virginia General Assembly isn’t doing much since Red Mark Herring will and has done anything Bloomberg wants. He had a ruling on CCW reciprocity a few years back that was written by Bloomberg’s minions. He claimed months of work in his office but refused to publish the “study” that was the basis of his ruling.

    Herring is involved in the blackface scandal. He disappeared after admitting he had done skits in blackface only to reappear today calling for the Governor to resign for doing the same thing. Democrat politics in Virginia have gotten interesting. We don’t need Bloomberg.

  8. I don’t know how any honest court could go along with the idea of handing state power over to people who’s only allegiance is to a private entity.

  9. It all sounds like a film Western where the .big rancher buys the efforts of the local sheriff

Comments are closed.