Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

[Stephanie]

lovely, SAY you believe or you be facing a HUGE FINE. thankfully it's only Seventeen states most of them BLUE. pay up suckers and say goodbye to jobs for your states

snip:
Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’
The Inquisition is back.
4.4.2016
News
Mark Tapson



A group of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington State) and the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” All but one are Democrats, the lone exception being an independent, the AG for the Virgin Islands.

At a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real,” and he and the coalition will pursue "to the fullest extent of the law” any companies committing fraud by “lying” about it.
As The Daily Signal notes,

all of it here:
Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Any legal action they take against people for their beliefs will back fire on them and cost them their jobs.

 

[mamooth]

If the mafia don orders a hit, he's going to be prosecuted for it, and people are going to laugh if he claims he's being prosecuted for his "free speech".

Same with denier fraudsters.

This isn't about some brainwashed cult clown raving nonsense on a message board. You denier rubes here are all free to keep babbling deranged cult nonsense.

Exxon, in their own documents, said they knew global warming was real. And then they deliberately lied about it, to increase their own profits. That's racketeering, and it's illegal.

 

[depotoo]

We can only hope. They will probably find some old, obscure law still on the books to make it stick, unfortunately. Or the harassment alone will bring them financial grief in some way.

Any legal action they take against people for their beliefs will back fire on them and cost them their jobs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the mafia don orders a hit, he's going to be prosecuted for it, and people are going to laugh if he claims he's being prosecuted for his "free speech".

Same with denier fraudsters.

This isn't about some brainwashed cult clown raving nonsense on a message board. You denier rubes here are all free to keep babbling deranged cult nonsense.

Exxon, in their own documents, said they knew global warming was real. And then they deliberately lied about it, to increase their own profits. That's racketeering, and it's illegal.

I deny "climate change".
The climate has been exactly the same for hundreds of thousands of years.
Durr.

Exxon, in their own documents, said they knew global warming was real.

Well, since the mile thick sheet of ice over Chicago is gone, I guess global warming happened. So?

And then they deliberately lied about it, to increase their own profits.

LOL!

That's racketeering, and it's illegal.

Racketeering requires a crime. What's the crime committed by Exxon?

 

[daws101]

lovely, SAY you believe or you be facing a HUGE FINE. thankfully it's only Seventeen states most of them BLUE. pay up suckers and say goodbye to jobs for your states

snip:
Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’
The Inquisition is back.
4.4.2016
News
Mark Tapson



A group of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington State) and the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” All but one are Democrats, the lone exception being an independent, the AG for the Virgin Islands.

At a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real,” and he and the coalition will pursue "to the fullest extent of the law” any companies committing fraud by “lying” about it.
As The Daily Signal notes,

all of it here:
Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

Truth revolt?

 

[mamooth]

Racketeering requires a crime. What's the crime committed by Exxon?

What "crime" is committed by someone using insider information on a stock trade?

You're assuming a "crime" has to have specifically identifiable victims. That's not how the law views things.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Racketeering requires a crime. What's the crime committed by Exxon?

What "crime" is committed by someone using insider information on a stock trade?

You're assuming a "crime" has to have specifically identifiable victims. That's not how the law views things.

What "crime" is committed by someone using insider information on a stock trade?

We're not talking about insider trading.

You're assuming a "crime" has to have specifically identifiable victims.

No, I'm assuming a crime has to be a crime.
What crime did Exxon commit?

 

[jc456]

Racketeering requires a crime. What's the crime committed by Exxon?

What "crime" is committed by someone using insider information on a stock trade?

You're assuming a "crime" has to have specifically identifiable victims. That's not how the law views things.

What "crime" is committed by someone using insider information on a stock trade?

you should ask Martha Stewart.

 

[mamooth]

Kind of the point, jc. You can't specifically point to a Martha Stewart victim. You can't specifically point to an Exxon victim. But they both did illegal things. In Exxon's case, racketeering via fraud.

Now, one can argue that the laws defining racketeering are overly broad, but RICO reform is another topic.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Exxon, in their own documents, said they knew global warming was real. And then they deliberately lied about it, to increase their own profits. That's racketeering, and it's illegal.

Prove Exxon has anything to do with global warming, Jim Jones. Oh yeah, you can't. Guess this discussion is already over.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Kind of the point, jc. You can't specifically point to a Martha Stewart victim. You can't specifically point to an Exxon victim. But they both did illegal things. In Exxon's case, racketeering via fraud.

Now, one can argue that the laws defining racketeering are overly broad, but RICO reform is another topic.

Kind of the point, jc. You can't specifically point to a Martha Stewart victim.

You're doing a better job of showing the stupidity of insider trading laws than showing what crime Exxon committed.

But they both did illegal things

Martha Stewart lied to the FBI and SEC. There is a law against that.
Who did Exxon lie to about global warming?
Where is the law against telling a lie about global warming?
Where is the fraud? Where is the racketeering?

Just because you say something is fraud or racketeering, doesn't make it so.
There are legal definitions to those terms and you haven't shown Exxon's actions meet those definitions.

Now, one can argue that the laws defining racketeering are overly broad,

And that their actions don't meet the definition.

 

[mamooth]

Prove Exxon has anything to do with global warming, Jim Jones. Oh yeah, you can't.

It's rather trivial. Fossil fuel burning causes global warming. Nobody disputes that. And Exxon is in the fossil fuel business. Hence, Exxon is linked to global warming.

Guess this discussion is already over.

Look at the tobacco industry. They knew smoking caused harm, but ran a disinformation campaign denying it, to maintain their own profits. They were prosecuted for that. Exxon did a very similar thing.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Prove Exxon has anything to do with global warming, Jim Jones. Oh yeah, you can't.

It's rather trivial. Fossil fuel burning causes global warming. Nobody disputes that.

A lot of people do, actually

 

[jc456]

Kind of the point, jc. You can't specifically point to a Martha Stewart victim. You can't specifically point to an Exxon victim. But they both did illegal things. In Exxon's case, racketeering via fraud.

Now, one can argue that the laws defining racketeering are overly broad, but RICO reform is another topic.

no the point is that Martha Stewart illegally sold stock she profited from based on private documents. that is the crime.

Now we're all still waiting on the crime that Exxon supposedly committed. racketeering isn't the supposed crime.

 

[jc456]

Prove Exxon has anything to do with global warming, Jim Jones. Oh yeah, you can't.

It's rather trivial. Fossil fuel burning causes global warming. Nobody disputes that. And Exxon is in the fossil fuel business. Hence, Exxon is linked to global warming.

Guess this discussion is already over.

Look at the tobacco industry. They knew smoking caused harm, but ran a disinformation campaign denying it, to maintain their own profits. They were prosecuted for that. Exxon did a very similar thing.

I dispute it

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Kind of the point, jc. You can't specifically point to a Martha Stewart victim. You can't specifically point to an Exxon victim. But they both did illegal things. In Exxon's case, racketeering via fraud.

Now, one can argue that the laws defining racketeering are overly broad, but RICO reform is another topic.

no the point is that Martha Stewart illegally sold stock she profited from based on private documents. that is the crime.

Now we're all still waiting on the crime that Exxon supposedly committed. racketeering isn't the supposed crime.

She was not charged with nor convicted of insider trading.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Prove Exxon has anything to do with global warming, Jim Jones. Oh yeah, you can't.

It's rather trivial. Fossil fuel burning causes global warming. Nobody disputes that. And Exxon is in the fossil fuel business. Hence, Exxon is linked to global warming.

Guess this discussion is already over.

Look at the tobacco industry. They knew smoking caused harm, but ran a disinformation campaign denying it, to maintain their own profits. They were prosecuted for that. Exxon did a very similar thing.

Look at the tobacco industry. They knew smoking caused harm, but ran a disinformation campaign denying it, to maintain their own profits. They were prosecuted for that.

Who was prosecuted? Where? Link?

 

[daws101]

ExxonMobil did not expect this sort of Spanish inquisition!

 

[jc456]

Kind of the point, jc. You can't specifically point to a Martha Stewart victim. You can't specifically point to an Exxon victim. But they both did illegal things. In Exxon's case, racketeering via fraud.

Now, one can argue that the laws defining racketeering are overly broad, but RICO reform is another topic.

no the point is that Martha Stewart illegally sold stock she profited from based on private documents. that is the crime.

Now we're all still waiting on the crime that Exxon supposedly committed. racketeering isn't the supposed crime.

She was not charged with nor convicted of insider trading.

SEC Charges Martha Stewart, Broker Peter Bacanovic with Illegal Insider Trading
"SEC Charges Martha Stewart, Broker Peter Bacanovic with Illegal Insider Trading"

ImClone stock trading case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Attorney probe of trading in the shares of ImClone Systems resulted in a widely publicized criminal case, which resulted in prison terms for media celebrity Martha Stewart, ImClone chief executive officer Samuel D. Waksal and Stewart's broker at Merrill Lynch, Peter Bacanovic.