Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maple MAGA who wrote (1396801)	3/29/2023 11:08:47 PM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By pocotrader Respond to of 1576130

"Tuesday, November 5, 2024, 587 days to be exact and" another MAGA loss.

To: Maple MAGA who wrote (1396801)	3/29/2023 11:26:16 PM
From: Broken_Clock	2 Recommendations Recommended By golfer72 Maple MAGA Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576130

Garland's DOI, Dept of Injustice +++ DOJ Memos Dissuaded Marshals From Arresting Protestors At SCOTUS Justices' Homes: Sen. Britt Wednesday, Mar 29, 2023 - 05:00 PM Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), A Senate Republican revealed during a March 28 hearing that an internal Department of Justice (DOJ) memo dissuaded U.S. Marshals from arresting protestors in violation of laws against picketing the homes of judges. Law enforcement officers stand guard as abortion rights activists protest in front of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house in Chevy Chase, Md., on June 29, 2022. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) The materials revealed during the hearing show that U.S. Marshals were explicitly directed not to arrest protestors at the homes of Supreme Court (SCOTUS) justices. “People want justice to be blind,” said freshman Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), who unveiled the findings during a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Attorney General Merrick Garland appeared before the panel to testify on the DOJ side of President Joe Biden’s proposed budget. Section 1507 of U.S. Code prohibits the picketing of Supreme Court (SCOTUS) justices or other federal judges to change the outcome of a legal case. But when protestors demonstrated at the homes of conservative justices to protest their leaked abortion decision in June 2022, U.S. Marshals made few arrests in connection to the statute. This, Britt revealed, was not a mistake. Rather, she showed that a DOJ memo had directly dissuaded agents from making arrests on the basis of Section 1507, instructing them to arrest protestors only as a “last resort” to protect the justices. Section 1507 explicitly prohibits “picketing” or “parading” near the residences of judges or justices in order to influence the outcome of a case. A few weeks earlier, Garland fielded questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee on his agency’s failure to prosecute those picketing the homes of justices. Pro-abortion protesters outside the home of U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Chevy Chase, Maryland, on May 11, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)During that and other testimony, Garland has insisted that the decision to arrest protestors lies with U.S. Marshals. “U.S. Marshals have the authority to arrest anyone under that statute or any other federal statute,” Garland said. “The attorney general does not make the decision to arrest. The Marshals on the scene—they do make the decision of whether to arrest.” But newly uncovered materials used to train Marshals to protect the homes of SCOTUS justices show that they were “actively discouraged” from making arrests on grounds of this statute, Britt said. “Those materials show that the Marshals likely didn’t make any arrests because they were actively discouraged from doing so,” Britt said. The training materials told the Marshals “to avoid, unless absolutely necessary, any criminal enforcement action involving the protestors.” Marshals were also told, “Making arrests and initiating prosecutions is not the goal of the [Marshal Service] presence at SCOTUS residences.” “The ‘not’ is actually italicized and underlined,” Britt noted. The next slide of the training “not to engage in protest-related enforcement actions, beyond those that were strictly and immediately necessary and tailored to ensure the physical security of the justices.”

To: Maple MAGA who wrote (1396801)	3/30/2023 3:09:47 PM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By pocotrader Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576130

Industry ‘Sabotaged’ Climate Solutions, ‘Petroleum Papers’ Author Told Canadian Senate DeSmog contributor Geoff Dembicki urged politicians to learn Imperial Oil’s history of spreading misinfo spanning back to the 1970s. By Geoff Dembicki onMar 30, 2023 @ 10:47 PDT Author Geoff Dembicki testified before a senate committee in Ottawa on Thursday. [Editor’s note: Geoff Dembicki is the award-winning author of Are We Screwed? and The Petroleum Papers: Inside the Far-Right Conspiracy to Cover Up Climate Change. He’s also a regular contributor here at DeSmog. On Thursday, March 30, Dembicki addressed a senate committee on energy, the environment and natural resources. Here’s what he had to say.] My name is Geoff Dembicki, and I’m an investigative climate change journalist. I’m the author of The Petroleum Papers, which was named a top 10 book of 2022 by the Washington Post. I’ve written extensively about the Canadian oil and gas industry for media outlets like The Tyee and DeSmog, as well as the New York Times, Rolling Stone and the Guardian. I grew up in Edmonton, Alberta, and as a child my family would often visit a playground next to Imperial Oil’s Strathcona Refinery. It wasn’t until I became a journalist many years later that I learned what that refinery was doing to the global climate. Yet Imperial Oil, which is owned by Exxon, has known about the catastrophic climate impacts of its business model longer than I’ve been alive. While researching my book, I read through hundreds of pages of internal documents from the company, which revealed that Imperial Oil was studying the link between fossil fuels and global warming as early as the 1970s. That was more than a decade before NASA scientist James Hansen first brought climate change to the general public’s attention. Imperial Oil was so advanced in its understanding that in the early 1990s it privately studied how to fix climate change and concluded that a national carbon price could stabilize Canada’s emissions. It also learned that this might result in lost revenues of $940 million. So Imperial decided to sabotage climate solutions. It wrote a list of talking points that executives should use when speaking with journalists and policymakers. They were instructed to stress the “many uncertainties” associated with stopping global warming. A former employee at Exxon told me that if Imperial Oil had instead used its political weight to push for a carbon price in the early 1990s, “it would have been so much easier to address the crisis.” Yet by 1996, Imperial Oil was publicly denying climate change is even real. Its annual report claimed there is “widespread uncertainty” about whether humans are causing it. In 2002, Imperial Oil helped set up a press conference in Ottawa, not far from where you’re now sitting, where several dozen of the world’s leading climate change deniers urged Canadian policymakers not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. One of the speakers was Patrick Michaels, who’d earlier claimed that “the climate change issue is an overblown bunch of hooey.” Two decades later, Imperial Oil is still trying to mislead the Canadian public. It is part of an organization called the Pathways Alliance, along with other oil sands producers, that is spending huge on advertisements saying the industry is committed to fighting climate change. They advertised on the front page of the Toronto Star, and during the Superbowl. Yet in its own submissions to the federal government, the Pathways Alliance reveals that the goal of its “net-zero plan” is to expand oil production. Experts forecast oil sands production could rise 500,000 barrels per day within the next decade. Because of this disconnect, Greenpeace just filed a complaint about Pathways Alliance to the Competition Bureau Canada, accusing it of false and misleading advertising. Meanwhile, after their most profitable year ever, oil producers are asking the federal government to give them billions of dollars in taxpayer money to pay for carbon capture and storage technology. Why? Because the industry isn’t even confident it will work. Imperial Oil told its own shareholders in 2021 that the technology is “economically challenged.” The oil and gas industry is not and has never been a climate leader. Before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources takes any more of its climate promises seriously, it should learn the full extent of the industry’s history when it comes to climate change: what companies here privately studied, and how they misrepresented the science and solutions to Canadians. In the U.S., Congress just spent a year investigating the oil and gas industry’s disinformation campaigns. Some of the companies that were subpoenaed, including Exxon and Shell, have extensive operations in Canada. The Senate should pick up the investigation, so that Canadians can finally learn how many missed opportunities we’ve had to get the emergency under control. desmog.com