• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate Denier

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
[video]http://www.mrctv.org/videos/ag-lynch-doj-has-discussed-whether-pursue-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers-0[/video]

During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions. He went on to point out that under President Bill Clinton, the Justice Department brought and won a civil case against the tobacco industry, while the Obama administration has “done nothing” so far with regard to the fossil fuel industry.Whitehouse concluded his comments by posing a question to the country’s top law enforcement officer: “My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” Whitehouse asked.
“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 answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”
Click to expand...
AG Loretta Lynch Testifies: Justice Department Has ?Discussed? Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers | TheBlaze.com

Elections matter people.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Beaudreaux said:
Never hold up in court. First Amendment. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment is not limitless. Certainly stating your opinion in regards to climate change is permissible. However, if you engage in fraudulent behavior - like when it was revealed that Exxon actively hid internal research regarding climate change while publicly denying that such research exists - then the first amendment will not provide civil protection.

This article notes that Exxon is currently under investigation based on potential violations of two New York State Laws: Consumer protection – whether Exxon Mobil engaged in deceptive or misleading business practices – and New York's fraud and securities law, known as the Martin Act.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

MrT said:
The First Amendment is not limitless. Certainly stating your opinion in regards to climate change is permissible. However, if you engage in fraudulent behavior - like when it was revealed that Exxon actively hid internal research regarding climate change while publicly denying that such research exists - then the first amendment will not provide civil protection.

This article notes that Exxon is currently under investigation based on potential violations of two New York State Laws: Consumer protection – whether Exxon Mobil engaged in deceptive or misleading business practices – and New York's fraud and securities law, known as the Martin Act.
Click to expand...

Then if you think they've broken a real law, by all means take them to court.

I guarantee you, that if they had broken a law, the Obama Administration would have already put them under the hammer.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

She should just stick to country music.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Beaudreaux said:
Then if you think they've broken a real law, by all means take them to court.

I guarantee you, that if they had broken a law, the Obama Administration would have already put them under the hammer.
Click to expand...

They won't do it.

Evidence of such proceedings would more likely invoke RICO actions against the consensus community. Besides, if you read her actual words looking at different sources, she simply had it referred the request to the FBI to see if the RICO requirements were met.

“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 said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations
Click to expand...

That is a normal style of weasel words that allow people to read from it what they want, without taking a stand. the statement was actually neutral. No sense of what direction her take is on it.

AG Lynch: DOJ Has Discussed Whether to Pursue Civil Action Against Climate Change Deniers
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Renae said:
[video]http://www.mrctv.org/videos/ag-lynch-doj-has-discussed-whether-pursue-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers-0[/video]


AG Loretta Lynch Testifies: Justice Department Has ?Discussed? Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers | TheBlaze.com

Elections matter people.
Click to expand...
What exactly is the scandal here? "We received information and referred it to the FBI to see if it meets the criteria for which we could take action on."

What else is the DoJ supposed to do? "Does this constitute a criminal or civil offense" is a question that the DoJ should ask when allegations are received. Am I wrong?
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Beaudreaux said:
Never hold up in court. First Amendment. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

No, not "nuff said." The tobacco example is one case where it was deemed that the first amendment doesn't protect a business' right to engage in a prolonged misinformation campaign regarding knowledge that ends up causing direct, measurable harm to people. A business can be held financially responsible for some of that harm.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Deuce said:
No, not "nuff said." The tobacco example is one case where it was deemed that the first amendment doesn't protect a business' right to engage in a prolonged misinformation campaign regarding knowledge that ends up causing direct, measurable harm to people. A business can be held financially responsible for some of that harm.
Click to expand...

First, there would have to be a definable, direct, measurable, and foreseeable harm from the products these companies are the singular cause that could not be caused by and/or attributed to any other source for the harm - cows come to mind as just one HUGE example, so this can't be done. However, to play along... second, if it could be proven that these companies are the sole source of harm (or even the majority share cause of the harm, again, to play along) there would have to be a provable and demonstrable causal relationship between the speech and the harm to individuals and/or the environment - unlike the tobacco argument that keeps getting brought up, this can't happen in this instance.

So, at the risk of repeating myself... Never hold up in court. First Amendment. 'Nuff said.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Beaudreaux said:
First, there would have to be a definable, direct, measurable, and foreseeable harm from the products these companies are the singular cause that could not be caused by and/or attributed to any other source for the harm - cows come to mind as just one HUGE example, so this can't be done. However, to play along... second, if it could be proven that these companies are the sole source of harm (or even the majority share cause of the harm, again, to play along) there would have to be a provable and demonstrable causal relationship between the speech and the harm to individuals and/or the environment - unlike the tobacco argument that keeps getting brought up, this can't happen in this instance.

So, at the risk of repeating myself... Never hold up in court. First Amendment. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Except it's not "nuff said" because you just said a whole bunch of other stuff. It was relevant! And accurate! And important.

So in the future just say that **** instead of "nuff said" when you damn well know the situation is more complicated than that.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Deuce said:
Except it's not "nuff said" because you just said a whole bunch of other stuff. It was relevant! And accurate! And important.

So in the future just say that **** instead of "nuff said" when you damn well know the situation is more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

It's not more complicated than that. A lot of government people, green industry investors, and people that just don't have a clue think that there's more to it than the LAW. That's what I'm talking about - the law. Either they have broken a law, or they haven't. It's that simple. I discussed why it will almost if not completely impossible to prove that they broke a law, which is not "a whole bunch of stuff" but rather a very accurate and targeted two sentence explanation of the legal facts.

The government cannot go after people, put them in jail, or even shut their company down if they have not broken the law, whether folks like it or not.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Beaudreaux said:
It's not more complicated than that. A lot of government people, green industry investors, and people that just don't have a clue think that there's more to it than the LAW. That's what I'm talking about - the law. Either they have broken a law, or they haven't. It's that simple. I discussed why it will almost if not completely impossible to prove that they broke a law, which is not "a whole bunch of stuff" but rather a very accurate and targeted two sentence explanation of the legal facts.

The government cannot go after people, put them in jail, or even shut their company down if they have not broken the law, whether folks like it or not.
Click to expand...

...which part of this did you think was contested by anybody? Government or otherwise?
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Deuce said:
...which part of this did you think was contested by anybody? Government or otherwise?
Click to expand...

Have not been reading your own posts?
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Deuce said:
What exactly is the scandal here? "We received information and referred it to the FBI to see if it meets the criteria for which we could take action on."

What else is the DoJ supposed to do? "Does this constitute a criminal or civil offense" is a question that the DoJ should ask when allegations are received. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you.

They have to forward complaints. She didn't say if she agreed with the action or not.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Where is it written that companies have to care about global change? The government through its breauracies write rules to accomplish things that companies are obliged to follow. They are not obliged to believe.

Other than the fact that being a "denier" is a state of mind. Or an opinion, if you prefer.

Having said that the burden of proof is on the government that your conduct broke the law that congress wrote. Uh, what law?
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Beaudreaux said:
Have not been reading your own posts?
Click to expand...

I don't think you've been reading my posts correctly.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Lord of Planar said:
I actually agree with you.

They have to forward complaints. She didn't say if she agreed with the action or not.
Click to expand...

Or even if there's an action going on in the first place.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De

Deuce said:
Or even if there's an action going on in the first place.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you have to satisfy the noisemakers with due process.
 
Re: AG Loretta Lynch Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Climate De


Use of Fear to Silence Climate Skeptics Is An Assault On Reason

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball Fear is the most powerful enemy of reason. Both fear and reasoning are essential to human survival, but the relationship between them is unbalanced. Reason may sometimes dissipate fear, but fear frequently shuts down reason. As Edmund Burke wrote in England 20 years before the American Revolution,” no passion so…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom