DOJ explores 'action' against climate-change deniers

[rangerrebew]

DOJ explores 'action' against climate-change deniers
Lynch: 'This matter has been discussed'
Published: 6 hours ago
 

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday that she has explored ways to “take action” on turning climate-change denial into a federal crime.

Get the details on Obama’s activities in “The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration.”

Democrat Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse used a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to liken companies that refute certain environmental studies to the tobacco industry once downplaying the correlation between smoking and cancer. The Rhode Island senator then asked Lynch why the Obama administration has “done nothing” to civilly pursue energy companies in court.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch replied, CNS News reported Wednesday.

Whitehouse said something must be done about the so-called “mischief” of the energy industry and the “climate-denial apparatus” it has created.

“Are there any civil cases with the United States as plaintiff within DOJ’s civil division in which the FBI is preparing the case for the civil division?” Whitehouse asked, the website reported.

“Are you regarding climate-change issues?” Lynch replied.

“Regarding any matter,” Whitehouse asked.

“I couldn’t give you that information right now,” Lynch said.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/11/FBI.jpg
FBI

Whitehouse’s questioning comes one month after the U.S. Supreme Court put the brakes on President Obama’s climate-change agenda. A 5-4 ruling on Feb. 9 halted Obama’s regulations on carbon emissions until a litany of lawsuits by 27 states are resolved. The states argued Obama’s EPA regulations were tantamount to “an unprecedented power grab,” WND reported.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Lawsuits related to Obama’s regulations, which aim to cut carbon emissions from electrical plants by 32 percent by 2030, are predicted to continue at least into 2017. The Supreme Court is expected to revisit the issue at that time.

Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

“This is going to be an enormous generational challenge,” Obama said Feb. 12 during a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in California, WND reported. “There are going to be people constantly pushing back and making sure we keep clinging to old dirty fuels and a carbon-emitting economic strategy that we need to be moving away from. We need to be investing in the future, not the past. Instead of subsidizing … the oil industry, we should be investing in solar and wind and battery technology.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/doj-explores-action-against-climate-change-deniers/#yDgtYfEgCeFQCAJ6.99

[PzLdr]

AG Lynch, meet the First Amendment...

[Charlespg]

I think climate change is BS

Come and arrest  me *****

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Whitehouse’s questioning comes one month after the U.S. Supreme Court put the brakes on President Obama’s climate-change agenda. A 5-4 ruling on Feb. 9 halted Obama’s regulations on carbon emissions until a litany of lawsuits by 27 states are resolved. The states argued Obama’s EPA regulations were tantamount to “an unprecedented power grab,” WND reported.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

This sums up perfectly why we need to win the election in November. And why Trump is not the man who should win the nomination.

Unless you want to be put in jail for not agreeing with climate change.

[Paladin]

Funny headline from Poor Richard's News: "Galileo anyone? Justice Dept. considered prosecuting those who question government climate narrative"

[mountaineer]

The First Amendment,  like the Second, is hanging on by a thread.

[aligncare]

This sums up perfectly why we need to win the election in November. And why Trump is not the man who should win the nomination.

Unless you want to be put in jail for not agreeing with climate change.

There's a whiff of desperation in the air here.

On a thread about government threats to scientific inquiry, once again you let your Trump Derangement Syndrome slip out.

Nice addition to this thread. My guess is you're desperate for any sort of win after witnessing your candidate lose last night.

 

[GAJohnnie]

This sums up perfectly why we need to win the election in November. And why Trump is not the man who should win the nomination.

Unless you want to be put in jail for not agreeing with climate change.

Well no problem then. Go win he nomination for Cruz/Rubio/kaisch

Odd how they cannot get enough voters to the polls now to win but are "sure to win" in Nov.

[Bill Cipher]

Well no problem then. Go win he nomination for Cruz/Rubio/kaisch

Odd how they cannot get enough voters to the polls now to win but are "sure to win" in Nov.

Not odd at all. You seem to forget that the voters in the primaries are a very small subset of the total number of voters and tend to be much more ideologically committed than the average voter; if they were not they probably wouldn't vote in the primaries.  The bottom line is who can get the most votes in November, not the most votes in the primaries.  Head to head against Clinton with general voters Trump consistently loses in most polls.  The others do better.  Which do you want, a win just at the convention, or a win in November?

[PzLdr]

Not odd at all. You seem to forget that the voters in the primaries are a very small subset of the total number of voters and tend to be much more ideologically committed than the average voter; if they were not they probably wouldn't vote in the primaries.  The bottom line is who can get the most votes in November, not the most votes in the primaries.  Head to head against Clinton with general voters Trump consistently loses in most polls.  The others do better.  Which do you want, a win just at the convention, or a win in November?

46,000 Dems in Pa. just changed their registration to 'Pubbie. 20,000 Dems in Mass changed to GOP or independent. Some 10,000 Dems in Ohio switched. And I seriously doubt it was because of Cruz, Rubio or Kasich. And yeah, I think the Donald will kick ass in the general.

[mountaineer]

46,000 Dems in Pa. just changed their registration to 'Pubbie. 20,000 Dems in Mass changed to GOP or independent. Some 10,000 Dems in Ohio switched. And I seriously doubt it was because of Cruz, Rubio or Kasich. And yeah, I think the Donald will kick ass in the general.

Many (if not most) did it because their party/unions told them if they voted for Trump in the primaries and he was the eventual candidate, the Hilldebeaste would win in November. Some may have done it because DT truly is their guy, and that's fine, but it's just like 2008 when so many Republicans switched parties to vote for Obama in the primaries, thinking he wouldn't have a chance in the general election.

Now could we get back on topic?

[Paladin]

Head to head against Clinton with general voters Trump consistently loses in most polls. 

You mean like those polls which showed Clinton trouncing Sanders in Michigan? Those kinds of polls?

[GAJohnnie]

Many (if not most) did it because their party/unions told them if they voted for Trump in the primaries and he was the eventual candidate, the Hilldebeaste would win in November. Some may have done it because DT truly is their guy, and that's fine, but it's just like 2008 when so many Republicans switched parties to vote for Obama in the primaries, thinking he wouldn't have a chance in the general election.

Now could we get back on topic?

Glad you have feelings. ANY evidence for that?

Guess the fact to win Presidential Elections you need more then just the Purity Choir of the GOP base is simply is going right over the Hate Trump Always squads head.

[flowers]

With obama giving the internet away.....soon any post that aren't government compliant will be illegal. Re-education camps for some of us then....obamacare kills us off. 

[GourmetDan]

Won't indict Her Heinous... yet thinks 'climate-deniers' need 'action'...

This is what an all affirmative-action administration gets you...   

[mountaineer]

With obama giving the internet away.....soon any post that aren't government compliant will be illegal. Re-education camps for some of us then....obamacare kills us off. 

No doubt.