White House Refused To Open Unwelcome EPA E-Mail

epfreed writes "The White House lost a case in the Supreme Court about the need for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. So the EPA made new rule. And now the NYTimes reports that the White House did not want to get these new rules from the EPA about greenhouse gases. So they did not open the email."

Comments

Re:Wait a sec

[Gat0r30y]

It wasn't actually even about rules, it was an assessment. It stated that the country would save between 500 Billion and 2.5 Trillion dollars over the next 50 or so years by implementing some environmental protections through the clean air act. The White House didn't like the sound of that - so they refused to open/read the assessment until the EPA backed down.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know

[oyenstikker]

He was impeached. He was not convicted.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know

[Kenrod]

Bill was impeached for lying under oath. The only place you can get impeached for getting a hummer is Alabama.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know

[ArcherB]

OK ... to further that then.

Where is the impeachment for LYING ABOUT WHY THE COUNTRY WAS DRAGGED INTO A PROTRACTED WAR! ... not for the war itself.

There are two problems with that. First, if Bush lied, then a whole slew of other people lied and would deserve equal treatment. Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and even John D. Rockefeller would all be guilty of the same "crime". Funny, considering that John D. Rockefeller (chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence) even created a report to try to prove that Bush lied. It found nothing:

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Even Rockefeller himself at one point said:

"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." So that whole Bush lied thing no longer carries any water. It doesn't matter either way as lying to the public is not an impeachable offense. That's why Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice, NOT for saying to the American public "I did not have sexual RELATIONS with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".

Please move on to something else now. May I recommend something a little more On Topic. Thank you.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know

[Red Flayer]

IANAL, but wouldn't it fall under contempt of court? The willful blindness analogy would hold up if it were a case of someone else committing a crime in the White House and the people being prosecuted had looked the other way, but this is a case of the defendants losing the case and simply ignoring the verdict by ignoring the EPA.

It's far worse than contempt of court, since the court in question is the Supreme Court and the violator in question is the Chief Executive.

This is willful, blatant disregard for one of the most important principles in the US Constitution, that of checks and balances.

The legislative branch passed a law requiring action by the exective branch. The executive branch said it was; the judicial branch found differently and told the executive to do better. The exectuive branch plugged its fingers in its ears and ignored the order.

This is a prime example of direct non-compliance with the US Constitution.

Now, I don't think we should waste the resources on impeachment proceedings at this point. However, I think there needs to be a full investigation by the Senate so that all the details are entered into the historical record before they disappear. As GWB has often alluded to, history will judge him. I hope he is haunted to the end of his days by what he has done and by what historians write about him.