Senators to Loretta Lynch: No, You Cannot Punish Climate Change Deniers

Today in the Congressional hearing with Loretta Lynch's non-testimony regarding the Hillary Clinton email issue, we saw first-hand that our Department of Justice has been compromised. The DOJ is under the control of Obama and Clinton and Attorney General Lynch will do anything to protect them and their agendas.

During the hearing, Lynch refused to deny that she will accept continued employment under a Hillary Clinton presidency, in spite of the fact that her integrity was being challenged on this fact as associated with her decision regarding the Clinton case.

Think about what will happen if Clinton is elected, and Lynch continues in her position. Our DOJ will continue to be a political tool, used to squash enemies of Clinton, defend or hide criminal actions of Clinton, and to further the agendas of Clinton.

Another good example, as some may already be aware:

Two months ago Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted during congressional testimony that Justice Department attorneys were looking into punishment for the fossil fuel industry and certain individuals, including academics and researchers. Their crime? Rejection or denial of climate change and therefore being opposed to President Obama's agenda on the issue.

Think about that.

The Justice Department was quietly working to find ways to prosecute academics, scientists and researchers, just because their point of view contradicts the Obama agenda regarding climate change.

This is frightening. What will happen to our country when research and free thought are threatened and controlled by our government? If people are threatened with legal action just for having a point of view that is offensive to the president, there will be no more research that does not follow the party line.

Today, five Republican Senators have sent a letter to Lynch reminding her that in America, we don't have thought police and the Justice Department doesn't have the power or authority to punish an entire industry because the people in it they think differently than the progressives in charge of the government.

What does it mean when our senators have to remind the Attorney General of something like this? Do you think that this Attorney General is a "just" and honest person? Do you think that she has intentions in the best of interest of Americans?

Do you think that those who ordered her to do this have the best interest of Americans in mind?

"These actions provide disturbing confirmation that government officials at all levels are threatening to wield the sword of law enforcement to silence debate on climate change," the letter states.

Senators to Loretta Lynch: No, You Cannot Punish Climate Change "Deniers"

a reply to: BlueAjah

I say we get on that after we get finished with all the Alarmists Fraud cases.

How about we start prosecuting the Climate Change Alarmists who gain monetarily and pump out bullcrap hockey stick graphs for the fraudsters that they are.

And yes, that is what it is, when you intentionally manipulate data, omit data, and "extrapolate" to get the results needed to get more funding to commit more fraudulent alarmism... to get more money, that is Fraud.

All for the purpose of implementing the BIGGEST Financial Scam Ever.... The Carbon Credit Trading Scam.

We now know the definition of a renegade administration.

I think the NEW (North Korean propaganda machine is well placed) in American politics and for the most part, Americans are to doped up with GMO food products to give a flying sht about it. The people who care are powerless to do anything.

The elite will be all connected to the political scene and be given such freedoms that those that are not politically connected will be denied of. This is the future of all civilized nations. Control the food, you control the people.

The surprising thing to me is that Senators are opposing this.

The ironic thing to me is that so-called "progressives" are so insistent on repeating history:

Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth. In 1632 Galileo, now an old man, published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which implicitly defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642.

Source: www.wikipedia.org...

Seems someone is having trouble differentiating past from future...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: xuenchen
We now know the definition of a renegade administration.

Just like the IRS.
Obama controls the IRS too and was/is using them to punish those who were enemies of the administration.
Lynch controlled that mess too:
Jordan blasts attorney general on IRS investigation

The way that the Democrats protect Clinton and Lynch in these hearings show that they all have something to gain from a Clinton presidency.

The Clintons are smart. They have managed to get such a stronghold on all levels of government that its terrifying.

What does it mean when our senators have to remind the Attorney General of something like this? Do you think that this Attorney General is a "just" and honest person? Do you think that she has intentions in the best of interest of Americans?

What does it mean to me?

Well, it means one of two things off the top. Either Lynch is not qualified to be AG due to being overtly politicized & inept
Or
Lynch is just as corrupt as those she aims to protect.

One thing Im absolutely sure of (which also applies to several in the Obama admin - including Obama) is that Lynch doesnt care about the previous 240 years of America like most of us do, but she only cares about creating her own version of America and forcing her version upon the rest of us in a heavy-handed, anti-American way. Shes an opportunist and needs to go.

I can see right through her.

There was a reason that Obama selected Lynch:

Loretta Lynch, President Obama's choice to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General, has an especially weak record of investigating and prosecuting political corruption. Moreover, her longstanding ties to the New York political machine have limited her independence as a prosecutor.
...
Loretta Lynch had nothing to do with exposing all this corruption that was taking place right under her nose.

Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch is Soft on Political Corruption

Her record shows that she does not prosecute political corruption, at least when the cases involve Democrats.

a reply to: six67seven


Or Three, the groups she is going after for denying have vested intrests in lying about things they do that affect the climate. I suggest you look up how lead got banned from most things.

a reply to: Pyle

Climate change itself is indeed a controversial subject.

But to come to the truth, and to find solutions, we do not need to silence researchers. We need to encourage open dialogue and research.

The Attorney General should not be the one deciding what science should be researched, and what should be silenced.
Her goals were political, and probably monetary, as the Obamas and Clintons have a vested interest in this subject.
It was not just the industry that she was after, it was the science itself:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is exploring the propriety of an inquisition to investigate anyone who questions climate change science. But in a society that protects free speech and the right to dissent, the answer to the question is evident — it itself is heretical and dangerous. The First Amendment couldn’t be much clearer on the right of Americans to swim against the dogmatic stream.
...
Even if the science of climate change is as settled as proponents contend, Lynch’s actions blatantly trample the Constitution. The First Amendment protects even the most hateful and nonsensical speech because individuals in a free and liberal society understand the detrimental effect of stifling dissent.

Add to that the reality that science is never truly settled — it demands vigorous challenge to constantly test and prove its hypotheses.
...
This issue isn’t about who’s right or wrong on climate change. It’s about abusing Americans’ fundamental right to disagree, no matter how out of the mainstream their opinions may seem.
...
This country has a great tradition of challenging established truths. Researchers who publicly question the “settled” nature of climate change—and the man-made impacts on it — should never have to fear they may be jailed for their research, wherever it leads.

Source

a reply to: Pyle

Or perhaps you can simply re-read the content in the OP and the source.

Shes attempting to punish companies, scientists and researchers for their ideas and thoughts on climate change.

Do you understand the implications? Its irresponsible (not winnable), ignorant and in violation of the 1st amendment and heavy-handed.

Lynch, once again, looks like a total ASS

a reply to: BlueAjah

How else are they going to force extra taxation ie "carbon trading" trillions into the hands of those crooks called JP Morgan.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Did you use the same crystal ball that said she was going to be indicted to determine what her presidency will be like? Because I think that one is broken.

The investigation into the companies is about them falsifying information about climate change to the public. It isn't about silencing dissenting opinion. Such as where Exxon's own scientific studies confirmed the human impact on climate through fossil fuels and they silenced it and published falsified findings. Exactly the same way the cigaret industry did concerning the harmful effects of tobacco, in fact the fossil fuel industry employs the exact same organization that defended tobacco on the issue. Of course, the rags like what your OP is based on will not tell you that.

I am not saying I support going after companies that lie to the public like that, but I am saying your article misrepresents the issue.

a reply to: BlueAjah

What will happen if Clinton and her puppet get to run the US? very clear a lot of bodies and no justice department to investigate the deaths.

I guess you can call it old scorned women justice.



I will have to agree with another poster on the renege administration.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I don't think that you are quite getting the theme of this thread.
Loretta Lynch has made a career out of covering for Clinton.
The Congressional Hearing yesterday clearly shows this to anyone with an open mind.
Thus, the lack of indictment explained, along with the lack of indictment of Lerner.
But we are not done with Hillary yet.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I think that you might want to look closer at the article in the OP, and the supporting document.
They did not make this up, but I'm sure the MSM would not make an issue out of it, because... they are what they are.

This link is in the article:
United States Senate

It indicates that Lynch issued subpoenas to over 100 private parties, including universities, scientists, and non-profits - anyone at all who was speaking out on the subject.

So, you discovered "political misuse of government power" during a blatant political misuse of government power?

Isn't that ironic.

A few things, actually, the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch ... and therefore, I know this is surprising, the Attorney General does actually answer to the President of the United States. Indeed, the AG and every other member of the Cabinet actually DOES serve at the pleasure of the President.

So your shock that Lynch "answers" to Obama and follows his agenda is ... a bit ... naive.

Secondly, climate change is not in question. The science is not in question. So, if our Department of Justice goes after companies that are breaking Federal law or regulations ... that's their job.

Because the Administration is not dancing to the Republican political agenda doesn't mean it's "gone rogue."

In fact, quite the opposite.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Meh, say what you want because I know what the article says and what the truth of the matter actually is. Your article misrepresents the truth.

Anyway, 100 subpenas to find out if companies have been wilfully lying to the public on the issue actually sounds like a low number.

a reply to: Sillyolme


Derp Derp ... crystal ball. Cute.


Comey " She's guilty but we are not recommending prosecution".
Lynch "I, as the head of the Department, did what my subordinates told me to do".
Hillary "Did I wipe my server? You mean with a rag?".
Obama "Not a smidgen of corruption".

Now it's "think like us or face punishment". Your team sucks. If I cared about you at all, I would feel sorry for you.