The EPA was originally formed in 1970 by Nixon (yes, it was a Republican that created the EPA) to address toxins in the environment. The main measures covered by the EPA were chemicals that were Corrosive, Reactive, Ignitable or Toxic. Operating within those parameters, CO2 and climate change are not really covered. The courts got it right by leaving the onus for climate change to the governed to decide for themselves than for the courts to decide, as regulating climate change (which is a global phenomenon, not a local one) has profound repercussions for large swaths of the economy of this country. Liberals talk about how climate change may force migrations of people, but ignore migrations of people that will occur via attempts to regulate climate change [without fossil fuel production (which is our number one export) a number of US states will not be able to support their current populations]. Legislation with such far reaching economic consequences should not be left to the courts.
Sorry, but what a load of nonsense.
"Nixon", "1970", "original targets for EPA action (corrosive, etc.)" are not relevant. To preface your conclusion with "operating within those parameters" renders everything else you state to be idiotic at best. There is no reason to "operate within those parameters" which were relevant 50 years ago.
And stating that, "legislation with such far reaching economic consequences should not be left to the courts" while trying to justify your conclusion that "the courts got it right" is nothing if not a stroke of comedic genius.
Environmental groups are upset because they cannot use the courts as a means to legislate climate change policies. Courts were not meant to create laws (that would be kritarchy, not democracy). Congress is supposed to create laws. If you want action on emissions, legislate it with the congress and executive branches that Democrats currently control. You should be able to pass the legislation that you desire (aside from Manchin looking out for the interests of his constituents). The legislation you desire will have a profound negative impact on the economies of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Alaska, etc.
On the flip side, it will likely cost you all the power you currently possess. You have seen the beginning of the impact high energy costs have on the cost of every single thing that people consume (inflation rates not seen since 1981 at the same time as declines in GDP, stock market declines not seen since 1970, a likely increase in starvation across the globe, and very soon, a likely spike in unemployment) and you are criticizing a court decision that may provide some relief from those issues.
Environmental groups are upset because they cannot use the courts as a means to legislate climate change policies.
In this case they were trying to use executive orders to legislate energy policy. Since congress has never granted the EPA that authority, it was a no go.
"Nixon", "1970", "original targets for EPA action (corrosive, etc.)" are not relevant. To preface your conclusion with "operating within those parameters" renders everything else you state to be idiotic at best. There is no reason to "operate within those parameters" which were relevant 50 years ago.
And stating that, "legislation with such far reaching economic consequences should not be left to the courts" while trying to justify your conclusion that "the courts got it right" is nothing if not a stroke of comedic genius.
Environmental groups are upset because they cannot use the courts as a means to legislate climate change policies. Courts were not meant to create laws (that would be kritarchy, not democracy). Congress is supposed to create laws. If you want action on emissions, legislate it with the congress and executive branches that Democrats currently control. You should be able to pass the legislation that you desire (aside from Manchin looking out for the interests of his constituents). The legislation you desire will have a profound negative impact on the economies of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Alaska, etc.
On the flip side, it will likely cost you all the power you currently possess. You have seen the beginning of the impact high energy costs have on the cost of every single thing that people consume (inflation rates not seen since 1981 at the same time as declines in GDP, stock market declines not seen since 1970, a likely increase in starvation across the globe, and very soon, a likely spike in unemployment) and you are criticizing a court decision that may provide some relief from those issues.
Poor Fat hurts, he's crying inside his Chevy Bolt.
So you went to your "safe place" and got a sanitized version.
Grow a pair and watch the hearings. Watch all the former Trump administration officials present their sworn testimony.
Then you can judge for yourself.
Sworn hearsay is still hearsay.
The mere label that something is hearsay does not, by itself, mean it is not credible or highly relevant and persuasive evidence. Hearsay, even double and triple hearsay, can be much more credible that direct eyeball testimony which is subject to all kinds of failures. of its own.
There are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay rule. As any trial lawyer will tell you, if you can't get hearsay evidence in, you shouldn't be trying cases.
I'm not even sure this Hutchinson stuff is hearsay. It's not being offered to prove Trump threw spaghetti at Giuliani or punched the Secret Service agent, but rather to show that various people in Trump's inner circle believed he was capable of such acts when Trump was in a highly emotional, unstable and troubled state of mine. In other words, he wasn't being contemplative, he was spazzing out hard as a legal state of mind.
The mere label that something is hearsay does not, by itself, mean it is not credible or highly relevant and persuasive evidence. Hearsay, even double and triple hearsay, can be much more credible that direct eyeball testimony which is subject to all kinds of failures. of its own.
There are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay rule. As any trial lawyer will tell you, if you can't get hearsay evidence in, you shouldn't be trying cases.
I'm not even sure this Hutchinson stuff is hearsay. It's not being offered to prove Trump threw spaghetti at Giuliani or punched the Secret Service agent, but rather to show that various people in Trump's inner circle believed he was capable of such acts when Trump was in a highly emotional, unstable and troubled state of mine. In other words, he wasn't being contemplative, he was spazzing out hard as a legal state of mind.
She's claiming things happened that she didn't actually see... which are disputed by the people that actually saw them.
Only Amber Heard's lawyers would put this woman on the stand in an actual trial.
The mere label that something is hearsay does not, by itself, mean it is not credible or highly relevant and persuasive evidence. Hearsay, even double and triple hearsay, can be much more credible that direct eyeball testimony which is subject to all kinds of failures. of its own.
There are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay rule. As any trial lawyer will tell you, if you can't get hearsay evidence in, you shouldn't be trying cases.
I'm not even sure this Hutchinson stuff is hearsay. It's not being offered to prove Trump threw spaghetti at Giuliani or punched the Secret Service agent, but rather to show that various people in Trump's inner circle believed he was capable of such acts when Trump was in a highly emotional, unstable and troubled state of mine. In other words, he wasn't being contemplative, he was spazzing out hard as a legal state of mind.
She's claiming things happened that she didn't actually see... which are disputed by the people that actually saw them.
Only Amber Heard's lawyers would put this woman on the stand in an actual trial.
Well, to be fair, she testified she heard from percipient witnesses (eyes, ears, nasal) that certain things happened, not that she saw them. She was up front about that.
There are differences between the Heard and Hutch situations. The whole dump on the bed for one. Political bias for another - Heard disliked Depp, while Hutch appears to have been enamored with Trump, even after she heard he threw the slop sauce at Giuliani. Furthermore, Heard was in cahoots with #metoo movement, while Hutch "interned" with Raphael Cruz. Different type of gender-centric shenanigans. Finally, Hutch did not employ any histrionics. She was suave and sophisticated, well prepared. Heard came off like a Texas grimalkin.
The mere label that something is hearsay does not, by itself, mean it is not credible or highly relevant and persuasive evidence. Hearsay, even double and triple hearsay, can be much more credible that direct eyeball testimony which is subject to all kinds of failures. of its own.
There are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay rule. As any trial lawyer will tell you, if you can't get hearsay evidence in, you shouldn't be trying cases.
I'm not even sure this Hutchinson stuff is hearsay. It's not being offered to prove Trump threw spaghetti at Giuliani or punched the Secret Service agent, but rather to show that various people in Trump's inner circle believed he was capable of such acts when Trump was in a highly emotional, unstable and troubled state of mine. In other words, he wasn't being contemplative, he was spazzing out hard as a legal state of mind.
She's claiming things happened that she didn't actually see... which are disputed by the people that actually saw them.
Only Amber Heard's lawyers would put this woman on the stand in an actual trial.
Trump is saying Hutch has serious mental problems. That is something worth investigating. If Hutch was all looney, that would affect her perceptions of reality. These crazy people will say anything. I don't think certified loons are even allowed to testify under oath, because they can't grasp the gravity of the situation. They are like freaks of nature in that regard as far as testimony.
The mere label that something is hearsay does not, by itself, mean it is not credible or highly relevant and persuasive evidence. Hearsay, even double and triple hearsay, can be much more credible that direct eyeball testimony which is subject to all kinds of failures. of its own.
There are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay rule. As any trial lawyer will tell you, if you can't get hearsay evidence in, you shouldn't be trying cases.
I'm not even sure this Hutchinson stuff is hearsay. It's not being offered to prove Trump threw spaghetti at Giuliani or punched the Secret Service agent, but rather to show that various people in Trump's inner circle believed he was capable of such acts when Trump was in a highly emotional, unstable and troubled state of mine. In other words, he wasn't being contemplative, he was spazzing out hard as a legal state of mind.
She's claiming things happened that she didn't actually see... which are disputed by the people that actually saw them.
Only Amber Heard's lawyers would put this woman on the stand in an actual trial.
She is not claiming it happened. She is claiming that Tony Ornato told her it happened.
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When I returned to the White House, I walked upstairs towards the chief of staff's office, and I noticed Mr. Ornato lingering outside of the office. Once we had made eye contact, he quickly waved me to go into his office, which was just across the hall from mine. When I went in, he shut the door, and I noticed Bobby Engel, who was the head of Mr. Trump's security detail, sitting in a chair, just looking somewhat discombobulated and a little lost.
I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f'ing hear what happened in the beast? I said, no, Tony, I — I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information.
So, once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him we're not, we don't have the assets to do it, it's not secure, we're going back to the West Wing, the president had a very strong, a very angry response to that.
Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of I'm the f'ing president, take me up to the Capitol now, to which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.
We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. — when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.
Mr. Ornato has not testified about it under oath. Neither has Bobby Engel. We look forward to hearing their testimonies if they have any semblance of courage like Ms. Hutchinson displayed.
Mr. Ornato has not testified about it under oath. Neither has Bobby Engel.
We look forward to hearing their testimonies if they have any semblance of the courage Ms. Hutchinson displayed.
She's claiming things happened that she didn't actually see... which are disputed by the people that actually saw them.
Only Amber Heard's lawyers would put this woman on the stand in an actual trial.
Trump is saying Hutch has serious mental problems. That is something worth investigating. If Hutch was all looney, that would affect her perceptions of reality. These crazy people will say anything. I don't think certified loons are even allowed to testify under oath, because they can't grasp the gravity of the situation. They are like freaks of nature in that regard as far as testimony.
That's interesting.
Trump says he knows she has mental problems but he also says he barely knows who she is.
Additionally, Ms. Hutchinson, who he says has mental problems, worked just a few steps away from the Oval Office. She was in countless meetings with the president.
So this person Trump hardly knew, except he knows she has mental problems, was allowed to work in the West Wing handling numerous sensitive matters for the Chief of Staff.
The only thing Trump knows about the people in his office is that they have mental problems and they are allowed to continue working there.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the most important part of Hutchinson's testimony.
The steering wheel story only establishes that Trump was angry and wanted to go to the Capitol and nobody is disputing that.
The story about the mags is important because it establishes that Trump knew the crowd had weapons and he sent them to the Capitol anyway. But even that is not the really big stuff.
The really important part of the testimony concerns the Mark Meadows call to the Willard Hotel. I think the J6 committee is building up to the moment that Trump is connected to the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
Those two groups conspired to attack the Capitol. That much we know for sure as some have already plead guilty to seditious conspiracy. We know it was the Proud Boys who first broke through the barricades at the Peace Circle. And it was one of the Proud Boys who broke the window that first let rioters into the Capitol building.
I believe that the J6 committee will eventually show that Trump knew about the Proud Boys' plot and he directly helped them by illegally sending the crowd to the Capitol. That's why the call to the Willard Hotel is important. The Willard is the place where the "war room" was set up by Drunk Rudy, General Flynn, John Eastman, Roger Stone, and Steve Bannon. It is known from video footage that the Proud Boys were providing security for Roger Stone at the Willard Hotel.
That's why so much time was spent during the hearing establishing that Drunk Rudy told Hutchinson that they were going to go to the Capitol on the 6th. It's why they established that Meadows told Hutchinson, "Things might get real, real bad on January 6th."
I believe that the J6 committee will show that Meadows knew about the attack plans. And so did Trump. This explains why both Meadows and Trump did nothing but watch during the initial hours of the attack.
Except for Trump not being present at the Capitol, everything was going as planned.
LIZ CHENEY: The night before January 6th, President Trump instructed his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to contact both Roger Stone and Michael Flynn regarding what would play out the next day. Ms. Hutchinson, Is it your understanding that President Trump asked Mark Meadows to speak with Roger Stone and General Flynn on January 5th?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That's correct. That is my understanding.
LIZ CHENEY: And Ms. Hutchinson, is it your understanding that Mr. Meadows called Mr. Stone on the 5th?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I'm under the impression that Mr. Meadows did complete both a call to Mr. Stone and General Flynn the evening of the 5th.
LIZ CHENEY: And do you know what they talked about that evening, Ms. Hutchinson?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I'm not sure.
LIZ CHENEY: Is it your understanding that Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Eastman, and others had set up what has been called, quote, a war room at the Willard Hotel on the night of the 5th?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I was aware of that the night of the 5th.
LIZ CHENEY: And do you know if Mr. Meadows ever intended to go to the Willard Hotel on the night of the 5th?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Meadows had a conversation with me where he wanted me to work with Secret Service on a movement from the White House to the Willard Hotel so he could attend the meeting or meetings with Mr. Giuliani and his associates in the war room.
LIZ CHENEY: And what was your view as to whether or not Mr. Meadows should go to the Willard that night?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I had made it clear to Mr. Meadows that I didn't believe it was a smart idea for him to go to the Willard Hotel that night. I wasn't sure everything that was going on at the Willard Hotel, although I knew enough about what Mr. Giuliani and his associates were pushing during this period. I didn't think that it was something appropriate for the White House Chief of Staff to attend or to consider involvement in, and made that clear to Mr. Meadows.
Throughout the afternoon, he mentioned a few more times going up to the Willard Hotel that evening, and then eventually dropped the subject the night of the 5th and said that he would dial in instead.
