Scary Stuff Coming From the Al Gore Warmist Front

[bshole]

In a perhaps unprecedented move that spits in the face of the Constitution and and is a direct assault on free speech, the heavily monied warmists are kick-starting their campaign to silence skeptical and serious minded questioning of their meme. Pretty ugly stuff. If they can't win in the marketplace of ideas, their go to plan is to imprison those who dissent. Noice. Remember that Al Gore stands to profit perhaps into the billions of dollars from warmist policies. He has a direct financial interest in this. He has one of the biggest dog in this hunt.

Seriously though, how can any sane American believe this is anything other than an outrage?

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) today denounced a subpoena from Attorney General Claude E. Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands that attempts to unearth a decade of the organization’s materials and work on climate change policy. This is the latest effort in an intimidation campaign to criminalize speech and research on the climate debate, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and former Vice President Al Gore.

“CEI will vigorously fight to quash this subpoena. It is an affront to our First Amendment rights of free speech and association for Attorney General Walker to bring such intimidating demands against a nonprofit group,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “If Walker and his allies succeed, the real victims will be all Americans, whose access to affordable energy will be hit by one costly regulation after another, while scientific and policy debates are wiped out one subpoena at a time.”

The subpoena requests a decade’s worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information. It demands that CEI produce these materials from 20 years ago, from 1997-2007, by April 30, 2016.

On March 30, 2016, Attorney General Schneiderman, former Vice President Al Gore, and attorneys general from Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, as well as Attorney General Walker, held a press conference in New York City to announce “an unprecedented coalition of top law enforcement officials committed to aggressively protecting and building upon the recent progress the United States has made in combating climate change.” Schneiderman said that the group, calling itself “AGs United for Clean Power,” will address climate change by threatening criminal investigations and charges against companies, policy organizations, scientists, and others who disagree with its members’ climate policy agenda.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/04/08/the-cei-subpoena-cannot-stand/

It’s another one of those things that’s the “worst thing ever,” wrongthink on climate change. Granted, many, myself included, do not share their position, but that is not the issue. No matter what you feel, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative libertarian think tank dedicated to free enterprise and limited government, is absolutely entitled to take the views that it does, to argue its views, and to be as wrong as it wants to be.

And for the offense of thinking wrong about climate change, CEI has become the target of a subpoena to reveal the culprits of its “worst thing ever” ideas.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) today denounced a subpoena from Attorney General Claude E. Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands that attempts to unearth a decade of the organization’s materials and work on climate change policy. This is the latest effort in an intimidation campaign to criminalize speech and research on the climate debate, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and former Vice President Al Gore….

The subpoena requests a decade’s worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information. It demands that CEI produce these materials from 20 years ago, from 1997-2007, by April 30, 2016.
Putting aside the absurd burdens of having to comply with such an overreaching subpoena, the purpose of this unilateral action by the U.S. Virgin Islands AG is clear: this subpoena is meant to threaten and intimidate CEI for advocating an idea that liberal politicians find wrong. The purpose is to silence thought, speech and disagreement.

CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman said the group “will vigorously fight to quash this subpoena. It is an affront to our First Amendment rights of free speech and association.”

https://cei.org/content/cei-fights-subpoena-silence-debate-climate-change

Al Gore an establishment monied multi-millionaire elitist who pillages the environment in ways I could dream of, is attempting to jail those who would stand between him and the billions he dreams of, for the simple crime of expressing a political position backed with scientific data.

 

[Fern]

I wish the article had discussed the basis for the subpoena. I don't understand how/why an AG could get one to check into another person's business, nonprofit or not.

Fern

 

[Jaepheth]

...for the simple crime of expressing a scientific position backed with political data.

ftfy

 

[OrByte]

AGs united for Clean Power

I support this idea!

 

[marincounty]

The truth shall set you free. Why so scared?

 

[Jhhnn]

I wish the article had discussed the basis for the subpoena. I don't understand how/why an AG could get one to check into another person's business, nonprofit or not.

Fern

The pdf indicates that it's disclosure in a suit about violation of a corrupt practices act. It's against the law to knowingly make false representations in a lot of circumstances.

If the organization in question is innocent then their records will indicate it, no?

Freedom of speech & the freedom to lie aren't exactly the same things, are they?

 

[bshole]

Freedom of speech & the freedom to lie aren't exactly the same things, are they?

Good god, you can't be serious. Of course you are free to lie (unless under oath or talking to a cop). You really want the government to start going after people who lie? That would mean every politician you can think of would be on trial or in prison. Don't you put any value on living in a free society?

 

[sandorski]

Good god, you can't be serious. Of course you are free to lie (unless under oath or talking to a cop). You really want the government to start going after people who lie? That would mean every politician you can think of would be on trial or in prison. Don't you put any value on living in a free society?

Do you put any value on truth? No one has the Right to Lie.

 

[Jhhnn]

Good god, you can't be serious. Of course you are free to lie (unless under oath or talking to a cop). You really want the government to start going after people who lie? That would mean every politician you can think of would be on trial or in prison. Don't you put any value on living in a free society?

I didn't say that. If CEI is indeed lying then the govt has the right to reveal that they are.

They're clearly a tool of the insurgent plutocracy. You just need to read a little bit of their spin to see that.

How the Hell does a supposed Bernie zealot buy into their feigned innocence?

 

[glenn1]

I didn't say that. If CEI is indeed lying then the govt has the right to reveal that they are.

They're clearly a tool of the insurgent plutocracy. You just need to read a little bit of their spin to see that.

How the Hell does a supposed Bernie zealot buy into their feigned innocence?

They have no such right unless it's relevant to a legal investigation. You cited the Corrupt Practices Act, so a relevant lie would be about bribes to foreign officials. Which I find hard to believe a think tank would do, but I likewise don't think a state AG would act unethically and risk disbarment and legal jeopardy just to discredit a think tank about global warming.

 

[glenn1]

Do you put any value on truth? No one has the Right to Lie.

It's also not normally illegal, or something the state would act to use the force of law against. Do you really want elected officials investigating opinion that others consider lies? Or people to be subpoenaed because they say something scientifically inaccurate like "Bush is a chimp" or "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim"? That's the world you want?

 

[sandorski]

It's also not normally illegal, or something the state would act to use the force of law against. Do you really want elected officials investigating opinion that others consider lies? Or people to be subpoenaed because they say something scientifically inaccurate like "Bush is a chimp" or "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim"? That's the world you want?

There's a difference between Opinion and Fact. If they have an Opinion about something, that is fine, but if they Knowingly make False Statements(Lie) that is not Opinion.

 

[glenn1]

There's a difference between Opinion and Fact. If they have an Opinion about something, that is fine, but if they Knowingly make False Statements(Lie) that is not Opinion.

OK great, when do we start using the force of law against those who say scientifically wrong things like "vaccines are linked to autism" or "GMO foods are dangerous" or "women only make 73 cents for every dollar a man makes" ad nauseam? Can we get the subpoenas and indictments rolling soon, like next week?

 

[Darwin333]

Do you put any value on truth? No one has the Right to Lie.

Sure you do in most cases which is why they make you swear an oath in a courtroom. Although in business practices you can't do shit like take a dog turd, dip it in Godiva chocolate and then sell it as guaranteed tripple A Godiva chocolate. Much like the banksters did with the entire subprime loan debacle that led to how many arrests again? Oh yeah, zero. FWIW neither the Repubs or Dems went after the obvious and very easily proven fraud so I'm not trying to start a bullshit rep versus dem argument.

When your wife asks if she looks fat in her outfit it isn't a crime to lie and say no. When you ask your wife if she has ever had anyone bigger it isn't a crime for her to say no. So I have to think that there is some sort of fraudulent business arrangement involving money that is the issue.

 

[DrPizza]

So, on one hand, you support taking emails that were obtained illegally, and taking portions of them out of context to make some sort of case, and on the other hand, you're against the release of information that is in context, since there's a (perceived by even you, perhaps) pretty good chance that the released information will be pretty damning against the anti-global warming side?

 

[interchange]

Remember that Al Gore stands to profit perhaps into the billions of dollars from warmist policies. He has a direct financial interest in this. He has one of the biggest dog in this hunt.

Seriously though, how can any sane American believe this is anything other than an outrage?

I have no idea about the validity of the subpoena. Frankly I'm not going to bother to look into it.

I was just tickled by your attribution of bias because Al Gore stands to profit into the billions from warmist policies. Funny considering the estimates of > $1B / yr spent lobbying against climate change policies and cooking up discrediting scientific evidence.

 

[sandorski]

OK great, when do we start using the force of law against those who say scientifically wrong things like "vaccines are linked to autism" or "GMO foods are dangerous" or "women only make 73 cents for every dollar a man makes" ad nauseam? Can we get the subpoenas and indictments rolling soon, like next week?

At some point those things might also face Legal scrutiny. The GW Denial Industry has been an ongoing enterprise for many decades now and has impacted Public Policy debate regarding the issue. At some point it becomes unacceptable.

 

[IronWing]

Depends on the circumstances the alleged lying took place. One is free to take out newspaper ads, go on radio talk shows, publish pseudo-science in quack journals, and advise candidates of one's lie de jour.

On the other hand, if one lies in testimony to a Congressional committee or other occasion while under oath, one's ass could be nailed to the wall. Only Congress critters are allowed to lie during Congressional hearings. If the AG has reason to believe that such lying took place and suspects the organization's records would support charges, then the subpoena might be reasonable.

 

[cubby1223]

OK great, when do we start using the force of law against those who say scientifically wrong things like "vaccines are linked to autism" or "GMO foods are dangerous" or "women only make 73 cents for every dollar a man makes" ad nauseam? Can we get the subpoenas and indictments rolling soon, like next week?

All it takes is 51% of the voting population to support it. Many liberals I know absolutely support this.

 

[Jhhnn]

OK great, when do we start using the force of law against those who say scientifically wrong things like "vaccines are linked to autism" or "GMO foods are dangerous" or "women only make 73 cents for every dollar a man makes" ad nauseam? Can we get the subpoenas and indictments rolling soon, like next week?

It's not like any of those people are being paid to formulate lies is it?

 

[woolfe9998]

All it takes is 51% of the voting population to support it. Many liberals I know absolutely support this.

LOL "many liberals I know." Yeah, we'll just take your word on it. Hey, did I tell you that I know several conservatives who are child molesters? Really I do.

 

[Darwin333]

It's been long held that the police are able to lie to you during interrogations. Does this mean that they are now committing crimes?

 

[sandorski]

It's been long held that the police are able to lie to you during interrogations. Does this mean that they are now committing crimes?

No one has suggested that lying is a crime. Repeatedly lying and having a major impact on Society is another issue though.

 

[woolfe9998]

No one has suggested that lying is a crime. Repeatedly lying and having a major impact on Society is another issue though.

Under what theory would such a pattern of lying come under "legal scrutiny?" If it's done under oath, I suppose it could be perjury. In some cases, fraud can be prosecuted but that has a very specific, narrow definition. Defamation is only a civil matter and the concept doesn't apply here. Absent these very narrow exceptions, lies are generally protected by the First Amendment.

Lies must be opposed with truth.

 

[sandorski]

Under what theory would such a pattern of lying come under "legal scrutiny?" If it's done under oath, I suppose it could be perjury. In some cases, fraud can be prosecuted but that has a very specific, narrow definition. Defamation is only a civil matter and the concept doesn't apply here. Absent these very narrow exceptions, lies are generally protected by the First Amendment.

Lies must be opposed with truth.

Dealing with the Tobacco Industry was one such example.