White House Refused To Open Unwelcome EPA E-Mail 497
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."
Wait a sec (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL but doesn't this amount to the whole ignorance of a law isn't a defense kind of thing? If an individual or a company violates EPA standards and they get caught they get spanked with fines and such. So by their rational if the rest of us don't know about the new rules we get off the hook too right? Works for me!
Why use email? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a nuts use of email. For something this important you'd expect the documents to be sent by courier or registered post, signature on delivery etc. That way, you can prove they've received it and if they've chosen not to read it it's their bad. Anyway, why should the White House need to see this? The court has decided the EPA has the authority to introduce the rule and it's then up to the judiciary to enforce it. The legislature is surely out of the loop by this point.
ignore them, maybe they will go away (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wouldn't open it either. (Score:4, Interesting)
That was my thought as well. I'm half-tempted to start forging emails from the DEA to the White House laying out new rules to end the war on drugs, just to see if it gets anything accomplished.
Does all this stuff get forgiven after election? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone know? Does there have to be some kind of catch all pardon from the President or something at the end of his term? (I hearby pardon all members of the Whitehouse staff of all crimes) That thing about firing Federal Attorney's who wouldn't procecute opponents of the White House during elections seems like something that shouldn't be just dropped.
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Interesting)
...did someone misplace a decimal?
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:3, Interesting)
OK ... to further that then.
Where is the impeachment for LYING ABOUT WHY THE COUNTRY WAS DRAGGED INTO A PROTRACTED WAR!
Re:Would you expect any less (Score:3, Interesting)
*crosses fingers* please oh fucking cthulhu please don't let him be lying on this one. The only explanation I can think of for the current Dems is that they have a lot to lose if Bush goes down, evidence implicating them in the same kind of crimes. I so hope he isn't a fake.
Re:You're wrong, perhaps you should read up? (Score:2, Interesting)
Bush's statements were made to congress and to the public, neither of which have punishments in the law books about lying. Clinton's statements were made in the court of law, under oath, there are punishments in the law books about lying under oath. Both are lying, but only one has a direct legal punishment assigned to it. Clinton should have been impeached for lying under oath, neither can be trusted to tell the truth.
Also it's kind of interesting that both you and the parent quote Rockefeller, only the parent's quotes are direct from a government report and yours appear to be from media/interviews? Personally I would consider the quotes in the parent post to carry more weight.
Perhaps it's much more straight forward (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps, among the short-term profiteers, there are those in the "know" in the industry, who realize that demand has already outstripped supply, and supply is going to forever decrease. Furthermore, oil is energy, and is fundamental, and may be the straw the breaks the camels back on the perpetual-growth-myth the is the core of our economic system.
Regardless, the situation is highly unpredictable, and the stakes are huge. The market has predicted the price of oil as correctly has possible.
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, yeah, now we all know -- but 49% of us already knew in 2004.
His election was disappointing, but his re-election makes me weep.
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think there's a wider social or political agenda - it's just short-sighted, short-term greed, like most of the market trading that goes on in the UK (and possibly elsewhere - but I'm a Brit and will confine myself to slagging off my own speculators).