Under Trump, the media suddenly care about government emails

Since President Trump has taken office, the media, especially the Washington Post, have gone after administration officials one by one.  The most obvious target the last several months has been Scott Pruitt, and there has been an absolute vendetta to get him.  Ben Rhodes has shown how this works.  Members of the swamp have a story they want to get out, and they release that story to compliant journalists, who just repeat what they are told, no questions asked.  Career people at the EPA and their lobbyists do not like Trump or his policies, so they need to destroy him and his people.  It is truly all about policy.

This WaPo story is about emails between EPA officials and people they regulate – as if they aren't supposed to talk to those companies and lobbyists.  The emails came to light because of the pure as driven snow Sierra Club.

The communication between the lobbyists and one of Pruitt's top policy aides – detailed in emails the agency provided to Democratic Sens.  Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Thomas R. Carper (Del.) – open a window on the often close relationship between the EPA's political appointees and those they regulate.  Littered among tens of thousands of emails that have surfaced in recent weeks, largely through a public records lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club, are dozens of requests for regulatory relief by industry players.  Many have been granted.

If the Washington Post and other MSM had been concerned about all the questionable activities under Obama at the EPA and elsewhere, maybe the public could believe they actually care and that it is not because they are just supportive of Democrat policies.

Here are just a few of the questionable and corrupt activities under Obama.

Lisa Jackson violated department and government rules by corresponding with those she regulated on private emails.  There were a few private email accounts.  She obviously wanted the information to be secret, so she broke the rules.  She obviously learned from Hillary.

Former U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson appears to have used her personal email address for official business in a potential violation of federal record-keeping rules.  Among the hundreds of pages of emails released last week, one string of correspondence stands out: the interaction between Jackson and Alison Taylor, a vice president at Siemens Corp.  

I wonder why NOAA doesn't want the public or Congress to see the actual research on climate change.  I wonder why the media aren't curious.

The federal government's chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change.

Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won't give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.

Obama's second EPA chief didn't even see the need to justify regulations with actual data.  She essentially admitted that the Clean Power Plan had a political motive and that it didn't make any difference that it had only a minor effect on temperature if at all.  The media also push climate change based on an agenda instead of actual facts.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy took a drumming yesterday when she refused to release the 'secret science' her agency used when drafting new regulations.  Testifying before the House Science, Space and Technology committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R) began the Q&A by asking McCarthy why she wouldn't release the studies and data in which her regulations are based.  Rep. Smith told McCarthy that his 'secret science' reform act would make the data public without interfering in the EPA's primary job and maintaining the confidentiality of third parties.

McCarthy also said she "doesn't actually need the raw data in order to develop science.  That's not how it's done[."]

McCarthy admitted the goal of the Clean Power Plan was to show strong domestic action which can trigger strong global action, e.g., getting other countries to follow our lead.  McCarthy refused to say if Rep. Smith's analysis of the minuscule effect on global temperatures was correct, stating again it was more about leading on a global scale.  She also refused to give Rep. Smith a timetable on when he could expect supporting documentation that he had been requesting for months.

The EPA and other government agencies essentially caved on lawsuits by the Sierra Club and others without a fight.  Isn't it nice that taxpayers rewarded these left-wing groups with money?  And of course, the media and other Democrats pretend they care about money in politics.

"Sue and Settle" practices, sometimes referred to as "friendly lawsuits", are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein  court-ordered "consent decrees" are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors.  Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action they and the litigants both want.  In other words, the agency throws the case[.]

On top of all that, we taxpayers, including those impacted regulatory victims, are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties.  According to a 2011 GAO report, this amounted to millions of dollars awarded to environmental organizations for EPA litigations between 1995 and 2010.  Three "Big Green" groups received 41% of this payback: Earthjustice, $4,655,425 (30%); the Sierra Club, $966,687; and the Natural Resources Defense Council, $252,004.  Most of this was paid to environmental attorneys in connection to lawsuits filed under the Clean Air Act, followed next by the Clean Water Act.

In addition, the Department of Justice forked over at least $43 million of our money defending EPA in court between 1998 and 2010[.]

Environmental groups and others pretend they care about animals, birds, and other species, but their actions should speak louder than words.  Why don't journalists care?

Massive solar power plants and wind turbines are killing birds and bats in large numbers, but the Obama Administration is not disturbed.  In Appalachia, the administration imposes strict standards on the amount of salt in streams below coal mines because it may (or may not) have an adverse effect on mayflies and other flies, but hundreds of thousands of birds and bats are killed every year by solar and wind facilities and the Obama administration shrugs it off.  In fact, they give permits to companies to do so.

When will journalists care about actually holding all to account instead of just those they disagree with?  The targeting of Trump on a daily basis is extremely obvious to the public.  The blue wave stories are based on wishes, not facts on the ground.

Since President Trump has taken office, the media, especially the Washington Post, have gone after administration officials one by one.  The most obvious target the last several months has been Scott Pruitt, and there has been an absolute vendetta to get him.  Ben Rhodes has shown how this works.  Members of the swamp have a story they want to get out, and they release that story to compliant journalists, who just repeat what they are told, no questions asked.  Career people at the EPA and their lobbyists do not like Trump or his policies, so they need to destroy him and his people.  It is truly all about policy.

This WaPo story is about emails between EPA officials and people they regulate – as if they aren't supposed to talk to those companies and lobbyists.  The emails came to light because of the pure as driven snow Sierra Club.

The communication between the lobbyists and one of Pruitt's top policy aides – detailed in emails the agency provided to Democratic Sens.  Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Thomas R. Carper (Del.) – open a window on the often close relationship between the EPA's political appointees and those they regulate.  Littered among tens of thousands of emails that have surfaced in recent weeks, largely through a public records lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club, are dozens of requests for regulatory relief by industry players.  Many have been granted.

If the Washington Post and other MSM had been concerned about all the questionable activities under Obama at the EPA and elsewhere, maybe the public could believe they actually care and that it is not because they are just supportive of Democrat policies.

Here are just a few of the questionable and corrupt activities under Obama.

Lisa Jackson violated department and government rules by corresponding with those she regulated on private emails.  There were a few private email accounts.  She obviously wanted the information to be secret, so she broke the rules.  She obviously learned from Hillary.

Former U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson appears to have used her personal email address for official business in a potential violation of federal record-keeping rules.  Among the hundreds of pages of emails released last week, one string of correspondence stands out: the interaction between Jackson and Alison Taylor, a vice president at Siemens Corp.  

I wonder why NOAA doesn't want the public or Congress to see the actual research on climate change.  I wonder why the media aren't curious.

The federal government's chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change.

Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won't give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.

Obama's second EPA chief didn't even see the need to justify regulations with actual data.  She essentially admitted that the Clean Power Plan had a political motive and that it didn't make any difference that it had only a minor effect on temperature if at all.  The media also push climate change based on an agenda instead of actual facts.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy took a drumming yesterday when she refused to release the 'secret science' her agency used when drafting new regulations.  Testifying before the House Science, Space and Technology committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R) began the Q&A by asking McCarthy why she wouldn't release the studies and data in which her regulations are based.  Rep. Smith told McCarthy that his 'secret science' reform act would make the data public without interfering in the EPA's primary job and maintaining the confidentiality of third parties.

McCarthy also said she "doesn't actually need the raw data in order to develop science.  That's not how it's done[."]

McCarthy admitted the goal of the Clean Power Plan was to show strong domestic action which can trigger strong global action, e.g., getting other countries to follow our lead.  McCarthy refused to say if Rep. Smith's analysis of the minuscule effect on global temperatures was correct, stating again it was more about leading on a global scale.  She also refused to give Rep. Smith a timetable on when he could expect supporting documentation that he had been requesting for months.

The EPA and other government agencies essentially caved on lawsuits by the Sierra Club and others without a fight.  Isn't it nice that taxpayers rewarded these left-wing groups with money?  And of course, the media and other Democrats pretend they care about money in politics.

"Sue and Settle" practices, sometimes referred to as "friendly lawsuits", are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein  court-ordered "consent decrees" are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors.  Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action they and the litigants both want.  In other words, the agency throws the case[.]

On top of all that, we taxpayers, including those impacted regulatory victims, are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties.  According to a 2011 GAO report, this amounted to millions of dollars awarded to environmental organizations for EPA litigations between 1995 and 2010.  Three "Big Green" groups received 41% of this payback: Earthjustice, $4,655,425 (30%); the Sierra Club, $966,687; and the Natural Resources Defense Council, $252,004.  Most of this was paid to environmental attorneys in connection to lawsuits filed under the Clean Air Act, followed next by the Clean Water Act.

In addition, the Department of Justice forked over at least $43 million of our money defending EPA in court between 1998 and 2010[.]

Environmental groups and others pretend they care about animals, birds, and other species, but their actions should speak louder than words.  Why don't journalists care?

Massive solar power plants and wind turbines are killing birds and bats in large numbers, but the Obama Administration is not disturbed.  In Appalachia, the administration imposes strict standards on the amount of salt in streams below coal mines because it may (or may not) have an adverse effect on mayflies and other flies, but hundreds of thousands of birds and bats are killed every year by solar and wind facilities and the Obama administration shrugs it off.  In fact, they give permits to companies to do so.

When will journalists care about actually holding all to account instead of just those they disagree with?  The targeting of Trump on a daily basis is extremely obvious to the public.  The blue wave stories are based on wishes, not facts on the ground.