Democrat Attorneys General have been gathering a list of “Climate Change
Deniers”. See article below:
Look What these Attorneys General Agreed to Do, by Michael Ware
August 4, 2016
There is no doubt there are times that one attorney general
will share information with another. There is also times that it is in
the best interest of all parties that this information sharing was not made
public.
If you are not ready to prosecute, then you will not want
the suspects to destroy evidence. This is important for the investigation
so that the truth can be revealed. But, what if the suspect is suspected
of something that is not criminal? This is in a case that has recently come to light. The Washington Times reports
Democratic attorneys general signed a secrecy agreement
aimed at keeping private the details of their investigation into climate-change
dissenters, according to documents released Thursday.
The Common Interest Agreement was signed in April and May by
representatives for 17 attorneys general as part of their collaborative pursuit
of fossil-fuel companies, academics and think tanks that challenge the
narrative of catastrophic climate-change.
This means that though the people they were collecting
information on and investigating had committed no crime, they were being
treated as criminals. Let this sink in for a moment. They were
under a massive investigation to collect information. Information about
messages and activities that were not illegal and should not be part of an
investigation in the first place.
This is the kind of stuff that we would see in movies about
Communist Russia in the Eighties. And what this comes down to is the fact
that these attorneys general want to silence those who oppose Climate Change. As I reported, there have been calls from some to make such
skeptics illegal. In fact, the defense of these actions is unbelievable.
The Times continues. Critics have blasted the cooperative investigation as a free-speech
violation intended to chill debate, while Mr. Schneiderman (Attorney General
Massachusetts) has argued that climate-change “fraud” is not protected by the
First Amendment.
But is this not stating a premise as a proof? How can
you be charged with fraud in a debate that is still on going?
Comments
The fraud
here is the Liberal’s assertion that “Man-Made Climate Change” even
exists. This is based on the UN global
warming hoax and has long been debunked.
But when Liberals are caught in a lie, they attack.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment