E.P.A. Official Pressured Scientist on Congressional Testimony, Emails Show Emails between Ryan Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency’s chief of staff, and the leader of the agency’s Board of Scientific Counselors were provided to House Democrats. JUNE 26, 2017 WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html ]’s chief of staff pressured the top scientist on the agency’s scientific review board to alter her congressional testimony and play down the dismissal of expert advisers, his emails show. Deborah Swackhamer, an environmental chemist who leads the E.P.A.’s Board of Scientific Counselors, was to testify on May 23 before the House Science Committee on the role of states in environmental policy when Ryan Jackson, the E.P.A.’s chief of staff, asked her to stick to the agency’s “talking points” on the dismissals of several members of the scientific board. “I was stunned that he was pushing me to ‘correct’ something in my testimony,” said Dr. Swackhamer, a retired University of Minnesota professor. “I was factual, and he was not. I felt bullied.” Dr. Swackhamer’s testimony came two weeks after the dismissals, which were met with fierce pushback from a scientific community that saw it as evidence that the Trump administration is seeking to weaken the role of academic science in environmental policy. That criticism has sharpened in recent weeks, after the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, and the energy secretary, Rick Perry, openly questioned the established science of human-caused climate change, and as the E.P.A. has taken down websites about climate change. Scientists have also expressed concern that Mr. Pruitt has staffed his senior offices with several former senior staff members of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a prominent denier of human-caused climate change [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/26/jim-inhofes-snowball-has-disproven-climate-change-once-and-for-all/ ]. Mr. Jackson also came from Mr. Inhofe’s staff. Among other requests in his May 22 emails, Mr. Jackson asked Dr. Swackhamer to note that “a decision had not yet been made” about whether to dismiss her colleagues on the agency’s scientific review board. However, at that time, several scientists on the board had already received notices that their terms would not be renewed. Since that testimony, the E.P.A. has sent out dozens more notices to academic scientists that their terms on the board will not be renewed. “The Board of Scientific Counselors had 68 members two months ago. It will have 11 come Sept. 1,” Dr. Swackhamer said. “They’ve essentially suspended scientific activities by ending these terms. We have no meetings scheduled, no bodies to do the work.” James Thurber, the founder and former director of the Center for Congressional Studies [ http://www.american.edu/spa/ccps/ ] at American University, said he had never heard of an administration pressuring a witness, particularly a scientist, to alter testimony already submitted for the official record. “It’s shocking and insulting to be told before you go in to alter your testimony to what the administration wants,” he said. “This just shows a certain amount of amateurishness about how these hearings work. They’re supposed to be places where you get objective views. You don’t go around telling people what to say.” Mr. Jackson and the E.P.A. communications office did not respond to emailed questions about Mr. Jackson’s communications with Dr. Swackhamer. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the chairman of the committee, dismissed the accusations. “It’s disappointing that the minority is politicizing what seems to be nothing more than a federal agency making sure that information provided to Congress is accurate,” he said in a statement. “Dr. Swackhamer and the Minority have repeatedly stated that she was testifying in her personal capacity and not in connection with her role as chair of the E.P.A. Board of Scientific Counselors. However, it is clear that the Minority invited her in an attempt to hijack the stated purpose of the Committee’s hearing on states’ role in E.P.A. rulemaking and shift the focus to recent E.P.A. actions involving the” Board of Scientific Counselors. “Any attempt by E.P.A. to ensure that what Congress heard in testimony about official E.P.A. matters included the full breadth of information seems entirely appropriate,” Mr. Smith continued. “Unfortunately, the Minority has made the choice to waste taxpayer dollars as part of a politically motivated agenda.” Dr. Swackhamer said she had already submitted her testimony to the congressional committee by the time she received Mr. Jackson’s email. She had also told the Science Committee and the E.P.A. that she planned to speak in her role as an independent scientist rather than an E.P.A. employee, and that she would make this plain at the outset of her testimony. Dr. Swackhamer made her emails with Mr. Jackson available to the committee’s Democrats. On Monday, the panel’s Democrats, led by the ranking member, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, sent a letter to Mr. Pruitt expressing concern that Mr. Jackson’s attempt to shape Dr. Swackhamer’s testimony may have been improper or even illegal. The Democrats requested that the agency’s inspector general investigate the matter. [...] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/epa-official-pressured-scientist-on-congressional-testimony-emails-show.html [and see also in particular (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=6645910 and [receding and following]
*
EPA chief met with Dow CEO before deciding on [sic - against] pesticide ban In this Feb. 24, 2017, file photo, President Donald Trump gives the pen he used to sign an executive order to Dow Chemical President, Chairman and CEO Andrew Liveris, as other business leaders applaud in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s schedule shows he met with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris for about a half hour on March 9 during a conference held at a Houston hotel. Twenty days later Pruitt announced his decision to deny a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide from being sprayed on food, despite a review by his agency’s own scientists that concluded ingesting even minuscule amounts of the chemical can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants. EPA released a copy of Pruitt’s March meeting schedule earlier this month following several Freedom of Information Act requests. Jun. 27, 2017 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration’s top environmental official met privately with the chief executive of Dow Chemical shortly before reversing his agency’s push to ban a widely used pesticide after health studies showed it can harm children’s brains, according to records obtained by The Associated Press. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s schedule shows he met with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris on March 9 for about a half hour at a Houston hotel. Both men were featured speakers at an energy industry conference. Twenty days later Pruitt announced his decision to deny a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide from being sprayed on food, despite a review by his agency’s scientists that concluded ingesting even minuscule amounts of the chemical can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants. EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said Tuesday that Pruitt was “briefly introduced” to Liveris at the conference. “They did not discuss chlorpyrifos,” Bowman said. “During the same trip he also met with the Canadian minister of natural resources, and CEOs and executives from other companies attending the trade show.” EPA released a copy of Pruitt’s March meeting schedule earlier this month following several Freedom of Information Act requests. Though his schedule for the intervening months has not yet been released, Bowman said Pruitt has had no other meetings with the Dow CEO. There was a larger group meeting that Pruitt attended which also included two other Dow executives, but she said that didn’t involve chlorpyrifos. Dow, which spent more than $13.6 million on lobbying in 2016, has long wielded substantial political power in the nation’s capital. When President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations, he handed the pen to Dow’s chief executive, who was standing at his side. Liveris heads a White House manufacturing working group. His company also wrote a $1 million check to help underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivities. The American Academy of Pediatrics urged Pruitt on Tuesday to take chlorpyrifos off the market. The group representing more than 66,000 pediatricians and pediatric surgeons said it is “deeply alarmed” by Pruitt’s decision to allow the pesticide’s continued use. “There is a wealth of science demonstrating the detrimental effects of chlorpyrifos exposure to developing fetuses, infants, children, and pregnant women,” the academy said in a letter to Pruitt. “The risk to infant and children’s health and development is unambiguous.” The AP reported in April that Dow is also lobbying the Trump administration to “set aside” the findings of federal scientists that organophosphate pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, are harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species. The chemical is similar to one developed as a weapon in World War II. Dow has been selling Chlorpyrifos for spraying on citrus fruits, apples, cherries and other crops since the 1960s. It is among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States. Dow sells about 5 million pounds domestically each year. As a result, traces of the chemical are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at the University of California at Berkeley found that 87 percent of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of chlorpyrifos. [...] https://www.apnews.com/2350d7be5e24469ab445089bf663cdcb/EPA-chief-met-with-Dow-CEO-before-deciding-on-pesticide-ban [id.]
AP Exclusive: Pesticide maker tries to kill risk study Apr. 20, 2017 WASHINGTON (AP) — Dow Chemical is pushing a Trump administration open to scrapping regulations to ignore the findings of federal scientists who point to a family of widely used pesticides as harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species. Lawyers representing Dow, whose CEO is a close adviser to Trump, and two other manufacturers of organophosphates sent letters last week to the heads of three of Trump’s Cabinet agencies. The companies asked them “to set aside” the results of government studies the companies contend are fundamentally flawed. Dow Chemical wrote a $1 million check to help underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivities, and its chairman and CEO, Andrew Liveris, heads a White House manufacturing working group. [...] https://www.apnews.com/a29073ecef9b4841b2e6cca07202bb67/AP-Exclusive:-Pesticide-maker-tries-to-kill-risk-study [id.]
Pruitt will launch program to 'critique' climate science U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt favors reopening the endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, according to Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp. Murray Energy Corp. CEO Robert Murray. June 30, 2017 U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is leading a formal initiative to challenge mainstream climate science using a "back-and-forth critique" by government-recruited experts, according to a senior administration official. The program will use "red team, blue team" exercises to conduct an "at-length evaluation of U.S. climate science," the official said, referring to a concept developed by the military to identify vulnerabilities in field operations. "The administrator believes that we will be able to recruit the best in the fields which study climate and will organize a specific process in which these individuals ... provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science," the source said. "We are in fact very excited about this initiative," the official added. "Climate science, like other fields of science, is constantly changing. A new, fresh and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing." The disclosure follows the administration's suggestions over several days that it supports reviewing climate science outside the normal peer-review process used by scientists. This is the first time agency officials acknowledged that Pruitt has begun that process. The source said Energy Secretary Rick Perry also favors the review. Executives in the coal industry interpret the move as a step toward challenging the endangerment finding, the agency's legal foundation for regulating greenhouse gases from cars, power plants and other sources. Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., said Pruitt assured him yesterday that he plans to begin reviewing the endangerment finding within months. "We talked about that, and they're going to start addressing it later this year," Murray said in an interview. "They're going to start getting a lot of scientific people in to give both sides of the issue." [...] https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056858 [id.]
Counseled by Industry, Not Staff, E.P.A. Chief Is Off to a Blazing Start Scott Pruitt, right, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin after President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the Paris agreement on climate change. JULY 1, 2017 WASHINGTON — In the four months since he took office as the Environmental Protection Agency [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html ]’s administrator, Scott Pruitt has moved to undo, delay or otherwise block more than 30 environmental rules, a regulatory rollback larger in scope than any other over so short a time in the agency’s 47-year history, according to experts in environmental law. Mr. Pruitt’s supporters, including President Trump, have hailed his moves as an uprooting of the administrative state and a clearing of onerous regulations that have stymied American business. Environmental advocates have watched in horror as Mr. Pruitt has worked to disable the authority of the agency charged with protecting the nation’s air, water and public health. But both sides agree: While much of Mr. Trump’s policy agenda is mired in legal and legislative delays, hampered by poor execution and overshadowed by the Russia investigations, the E.P.A. is acting. Mr. Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who built a career out of suing the agency he now leads, is moving effectively to dismantle the regulations and international agreements that stood as a cornerstone of President Barack Obama [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html ]’s legacy. “Just the number of environmental rollbacks in this time frame is astounding,” said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard. “Pruitt has come in with a real mission. He is much more organized, much more focused than the other cabinet-level officials, who have not really taken charge of their agencies. It’s very striking how much they’ve done.” Since February, Mr. Pruitt has filed a proposal of intent [ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/04/2017-06522/review-of-the-clean-power-plan ] to undo or weaken Mr. Obama’s climate change [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html ] regulations, known as the Clean Power Plan. In late June, he filed a legal plan [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/climate/epa-rescind-water-pollution-regulation.html ] to repeal an Obama-era rule curbing pollution in the nation’s waterways. He delayed [ https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-06-16/pdf/2017-12698.pdf ] a rule that would require fossil fuel companies to rein in leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from oil [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-petroleum-and-gasoline/index.html ] and gas wells. He delayed the date by which companies must comply with a rule [ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/06/14/2017-12340/accidental-release-prevention-requirements-risk-management-programs-under-the-clean-air-act-further ] to prevent explosions and spills at chemical plants. And he reversed a ban [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/health/pesticides-epa-chlorpyrifos-scott-pruitt.html ] on the use of a pesticide that the E.P.A.’s own scientists have said is linked to damage of children’s nervous systems. In a sign of both Mr. Pruitt’s influence in the White House and the high regard in which Mr. Trump holds him, he will take a leading role in devising the legal path to withdraw from the 194-nation Paris agreement on climate change, a job that would typically fall to lawyers at the State Department. And he is doing all this largely without the input of the 15,000 career employees at the agency he heads, according to interviews with over 20 current and former E.P.A. senior career staff members. “I have been consistently informed by multiple career people at E.P.A. that Administrator Pruitt is not meeting with them ahead of making decisions like rolling back these major regulations,” said James J. Jones, who had worked at the agency since the Reagan administration before retiring in January. Mr. Jones, an expert in chemical and pesticide pollution, was appointed by Mr. Obama as the E.P.A.’s assistant administrator for chemical safety in his final years at the agency. Instead, Mr. Pruitt has outsourced crucial work to a network of lawyers, lobbyists and other allies, especially Republican state attorneys general, a network he worked with closely as the head of the Republican Attorneys General Association. Since 2013, the group has collected $4.2 million from fossil fuel-related companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Murray Energy and Southern Company, businesses that also worked closely with Mr. Pruitt in many of the 14 lawsuits he filed against the E.P.A. Within the agency, Mr. Pruitt relies on the counsel of a small network of political appointees, including a number of former lobbyists and senior industry officials. For example, he tapped Nancy Beck, previously a policy director for the American Chemistry Council, which lobbies on behalf of companies such as Dow and DuPont, to oversee the E.P.A. office charged with enforcing regulations on hazardous chemicals. “It amounts to a corporate takeover of the agency, in its decision- and policy-making functions,” said Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, a government watchdog group. Mr. Pruitt, 49, sees himself as a champion of states’ rights, pressing to diminish the intrusive authority of an overbearing federal agency. Hanging near the fireplace on the wood-paneled walls of his office is a portrait of President James Monroe, who opposed ratifying the Constitution because he said it gave too much power to the federal government. [...] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/us/politics/trump-epa-chief-pruitt-regulations-climate-change.html [with comments] [id.]
Federal court blocks Trump EPA on air pollution EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt speaks to the media during the daily briefing at the White House on June 2. A federal appeals court in Washington ruled Monday that Pruitt overstepped his authority in trying to delay implementation of a 2016 rule requiring oil and gas companies to monitor and reduce methane leaks. July 3, 2017 An appeals court Monday struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s 90-day suspension of new emission standards on oil and gas wells [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-delays-rules-limiting-methane-emissions/2017/06/14/0e7d50fa-512b-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html ], a decision that could set back the Trump administration’s broad legal strategy for rolling back Obama-era rules. In a 2-to-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the EPA had the right to reconsider a 2016 rule limiting methane and smog-forming pollutants emitted by oil and gas wells but could not delay the effective date while it sought to rewrite the regulation. The agency has proposed extending the initial delay to two years; the court will hold a hearing on that suspension separately. “The court’s ruling is yet another reminder, now in the context of environmental protection, that the federal judiciary remains a significant obstacle to the president’s desire to order immediate change,” Richard Lazarus, an environmental-law professor at Harvard Law School, said in an email. “The D.C. Circuit’s ruling today makes clear that neither the president nor his EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, can by fiat unilaterally and instantaneously repeal or otherwise stay the effectiveness of the environmental protection rules put into place during the Obama administration,” he added. The EPA, along with the American Petroleum Institute, had argued that the stay Pruitt imposed last month was not subject to judicial review, because it did not constitute final action on the rule. In a recent interview with The Washington Post, Pruitt said, “Just because you provide a time for implementation or compliance that’s longer doesn’t mean that you’re going to necessarily reverse or redirect the rule.” But the court rejected that interpretation, writing, “EPA’s stay, in other words, is essentially an order delaying the rule’s effective date, and this court has held that such orders are tantamount to amending or revoking a rule.” Appointees of Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, David S. Tatel and Robert L. Wilkins, joined in the majority, while Janice Rogers Brown, an appointee of President George W. Bush, dissented. The ruling could affect myriad agencies that have delayed the Obama administration’s regulations, some for long periods. And it underscores the extent to which activists are turning to the courts to block President Trump’s most ambitious policy shifts. Last month, for example, the Interior Department announced that it would delay compliance with a rule finalized in November that would limit methane burned off from drilling operations on federal and tribal lands. And the Labor Department just proposed delaying until December a rule that was set to take effect July 1 that would require companies to electronically report injuries and illnesses. “The court says you can consider changing the rules but you have to do it the normal way, with a comment period,” said David Doniger, director of the climate and clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “You can’t yank it out of existence on your say-so.” Lazarus added, “Changing the rules midstream can occur only after a thorough administrative review, including public notice and opportunity to comment, that ensures that there are good reasons for the change, backed up by sound policy and science.” [...] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-court-blocks-trump-epa-on-air-pollution/2017/07/03/464a7344-601e-11e7-84a1-a26b75ad39fe_story.html [with embedded video, and comments] [id.]
EPA's new leader confirms fears by abandoning water quality rule Editorial Wetlands just outside of Stone Harbor, N.J., absorb flood waters and filter out pollutants. July 4, 2017 Updated July 4, 2017 Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt seems to think businesses have guaranteed rights to pollute our air and water. As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt let chicken processors dump 300,000 tons of waste into an estuary of the Illinois River. Now, President Trump’s choice to head the EPA is attacking rules that would reduce carbon and methane, two greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. And he’s set his sights on a clean water rule [ http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20170704_EPA_ditching_clean_water.html ] imposed in 2015 to clarify which waterways are federally protected to safeguard people from toxic water. Pruitt is pandering to polluters who wrongly argue that the rule usurps state authority and violates property rights by insisting polluters keep their poisons out of waterways that flow into drinking water supplies. Those specious arguments are distractions aimed at muddying the real issue: which waterways are federally protected. [...] The EPA under former President Barack Obama issued the rule after months of hearings, testimony, scientific and legal research. The rule cleared up a pair of Supreme Court decisions that left fuzzy whether the federal government had jurisdiction over feeder streams. In contrast to that process, Science Magazine reports the Trump administration bypassed scientific judgment and is instead making the legal argument that it has the authority to change an EPA rule without having to prove whether that action would make things better or worse. Clean water in states like Pennsylvania is further threatened by years of budget cuts that reduced the number of water quality inspectors. State Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Patrick McDonnell says that’s unacceptable, but without adequate funding what can he do? And Trump’s proposed 32 percent cut in EPA’s budget will make matters worse. Without the personnel needed to monitor state compliance with basic water standards, it will be very hard to ensure pollutants don’t reach dangerous levels. Clean water is a precious commodity. With the EPA under Trump seeming to turn its back on it, the states must find the means to protect their residents’ health. http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/epas-new-leader-confirms-fears-by-abandoning-water-quality-rule-20170704.html [with comments] [id.]
The End Goal of Trump’s War on Science EPA head Scott Pruitt wants to undo Obama's environmental legacy. This is his smokescreen. July 4, 2017 Climate-change deniers go to great lengths to convince the public that there’s a legitimate scientific debate about whether humans are the main cause of global warming, but the Trump administration took this pathology to another level last week: Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, plans [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/climate/scott-pruitt-climate-change-red-team.html ] to form a group to question the merits of climate science. Quoting a senior administration official, E&E News reported [ https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056858 (excerpted above)] that the EPA group “will use ‘red team, blue team’ exercises to conduct an ‘at-length evaluation of U.S. climate science.’” Activists and journalists expressed the requisite alarm. The offhand climate science denialism of the Trump administration is becoming more organized, potent and dangerous. https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056858 ... 11:15 AM - 30 Jun 2017 [ https://twitter.com/johnupton/status/880822178593341440 (with comments)] Shorter @EPAScottPruitt: Do Cigarettes cause cancer? 10:22 AM - 30 Jun 2017 [ https://twitter.com/adbeitman/status/880808770108092418 (no comments yet)] This new group is just the latest tactical move in what many, including the New York Times' editorial board [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/opinion/the-trump-administrations-war-on-science.html ], have dubbed the Trump administration’s “war on science.” Pruitt denies the scientific fact that carbon emissions drive global warming. He removed accurate scientific information [ http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/29/epa_scrubs_climate_change_sections_from_website_hours_before_climate_march.html ] about climate change from the EPA’s website. He fired almost everyone [ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/epa-sheds-38-more-science-advisors ] who currently serves on the Board of Scientific Counselors, which ensures the integrity [ https://newrepublic.com/article/142547/epa-fired-bunch-scientists-its-just-political-theaterfor-now ] of the agency’s main science division, and may fill those vacancies with representatives from polluting industries [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/07/us/politics/epa-dismisses-members-of-major-scientific-review-board.html ]. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Texas Senator Lamar Smith has proposed two bills [ https://newrepublic.com/article/141227/republicans-war-science-just-got-frighteningly-real ]: one to overhaul the makeup of the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), which evaluates the science behind agency regulations; and another to restrict what kind of science the EPA can use to create regulations. Pruittand his allies clearly want to undermine basic climate science at the EPA, but it’s important to understand why. It’s not simply that Pruitt wants to mold the agency in his image. It’s because the best available science bolsters the Obama-era policies he wants to repeal, and it will likely show that Pruitt’s own policies would endanger the public—even causing preventable deaths [ http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/politics/scientist-clean-power-plan-repeal-trump/index.html ] due to pollution and higher temperatures. Pruitt and his allies want to avoid such politically damaging scientific conclusions, so they’re trying to cripple the science itself. To understand why Pruitt is so eager to change scientific review at the EPA, look at the Waters of the United States Rule. This week, Pruitt moved forward [ https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/06/27/stories/1060056680 ] with his long-expected move to repeal the Obama-era regulation, which dramatically expanded Clean Water Act protections for small bodies of water. It’s a controversial rule [ https://thinkprogress.org/why-the-epas-clean-drinking-water-rule-is-so-controversial-f2ecaf949b25 ]—more so, perhaps, than any environmental regulation of Barack Obama’s presidency. But Pruitt faces a rhetorical obstacle. In 2014, the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board released a 103-page review [ http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebBOARD/AF1A28537854F8AB85257D74005003D2/$File/EPA-SAB-15-001+unsigned.pdf ] of the science behind the rule, and determined that it was sound: Obama and his allies were scientifically correct when they argued that protecting these waters would have a real impact on protecting human health. Specifically, the report confirmed that the small streams and wetlands WOTUS sought to protect “exert strong influence on the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of downstream waters.” In other words, reducing pollution from small bodies of water has tangible impacts on the quality of drinking water from larger, connected bodies. Amanda Rodewald, a Cornell University ornithology professor who led the scientific review of the WOTUS science, acknowledged that the report was likely important to the Obama administration when selling the public on the rule. “It was needed especially because the rule was so controversial. It was important for this independent group of scientists to have it vetted and taken seriously,” she said. “The report was needed to show that this wasn’t just some political act. This was actually a regulation based in the science.” But Rodewald also asserted that her SAB was fiercely independent of the administration, and noted that their review only endorsed the science behind the policy, not the policy itself. “We had a diverse panel of experts—hydrology, geomorphology, aquatic ecology, fishery people, people from industry and consulting,” she said. “There was extended discussion, a lot of testimony from different experts, a lot of groups interested... There were public comments as well, and then we were able to consider all of those in our discussion.” The review took about a year and a half, she said. Still, congressional Republicans accused the SAB of being politicized [ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/environmentalists-scientists-fret-over-republican-bills-targeting-epa-science ], arguing that because some scientists on the board had received grants from the EPA, they were inherently conflicted and biased in favor of the administration. At the same time, Republicans argued that industry representatives who would be directly impacted by EPA regulations had no conflict, and that they deserved more representation on the SAB. [...] https://newrepublic.com/article/143652/end-goal-trumps-war-science [id.]
--
Full Show - Trump’s Travel Ban Confirmed, Senate Moving Against Clinton And Lynch - 06/26/2017
Published on Jun 26, 2017 by The Alex Jones Channel
Monday, June 26th 2017: Trump Travel Ban Ruling - The Supreme Court has approved a limited version of President Trump's executive order banning travel from six terror prone nations, with further arguments to be taken up in October. Meanwhile, speculation is rife Trump could have a second Supreme Court nomination, as Justice Anthony Kennedy is expected to retire soon. On today's show, Rebel Media's Tommy Robinson breaks down the immigrant influx affecting Europe. Also, former State Dept. insider Michael Springmann discusses how a CIA program gave terrorists U.S. visas.
As could be predicted, the creation of the self-contradictory philosophy of "anarcho"-capitalism has given birth to all kinds crazy spin-off philosophies such as "anarcho"-fascism. "That Guy T" who is featured in this video, has written articles for FEE (Foundation for Economic Education) in the past. FEE of course is one of the first right-libertarian think tanks in the United States, and has published works from Christofascist anti-semites like R.J. Rushdoomy who wants to create a Christian theocracy where homosexuality is punishable by death.
During Prime Minister Modi's visit to the United States on his three-nation tour, he will meet with President Donald Trump. The President and Prime Minister will give a brief statement after their meeting in Washington, D.C.
FBI has questioned Trump campaign adviser Carter Page at length in Russia probe Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, speaks at a news conference in Moscow on Dec. 12, 2016. FBI agents have repeatedly questioned former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page about his contacts with Russians and his interactions with the Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the investigation. Over a series of five meetings in March, totaling about 10 hours of questioning, Page repeatedly denied wrongdoing when asked about allegations that he may have acted as a kind of go-between for Russia and the Trump campaign, according to a person familiar with Page’s account. The interviews with the FBI are the most extensive known questioning of a potential suspect in the probe of possible Russian connections to associates of President Trump. The questioning of Page came more than a month before the Russian investigation was put under the direction of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Page confirmed Monday that the interviews occurred, calling them “extensive discussions.” He declined to say if he has spoken to investigators since the March interviews. He said the FBI agents “acknowledged that I’m a loyal American veteran but indicated that their management was concerned that I did not believe the conclusions” of a Jan 6. U.S. intelligence report describing Russian government interference in the U.S. election. “Our frank and open conversations gave me confidence that there are still logical, honest individuals at the bureau who respect civil rights and the Constitution,’’ he said. As he has for months, Page said the accusations against him are lies spread by supporters of Hillary Clinton and former president Barack Obama, aimed at weakening the Trump administration. Because it is against the law for an individual to lie to FBI agents about a material issue under investigation, many lawyers recommend that their clients not sit for interviews with the bureau without an attorney present. Page said he spoke without an attorney and wasn’t concerned about the risks because he told the truth. In April, The Washington Post reported [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html ] that Page had been the subject of a foreign intelligence surveillance court order beginning in the summer of 2016. Spokesmen for the FBI and the special counsel declined to comment. [...] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-has-questioned-trump-campaign-adviser-carter-page-at-length-in-russia-probe/2017/06/26/1a271dcc-5aa5-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html [with embedded video, and comments]
The FBI appears to be taking cues from the explosive Russia dossier that Trump called 'phony' Carter Page June 26, 2017 The FBI extensively questioned Carter Page, an early foreign policy adviser to President Donald Trump's campaign, in March about allegations that he served as a middleman between the campaign and Moscow during the election, Page confirmed to Business Insider on Monday. Those allegations were laid out in an explosive but unverified collection of memos [ http://www.businessinsider.com/updated-trump-russia-election-timeline-fbi-2017-3 ], now known as the Trump-Russia dossier, accusing the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia to undermine Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the election. The memos were written by Christopher Steele, a former British spy who spent years working in Moscow. Steele wrote the memos for Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm based in Washington, DC that was hired by never-Trump Republicans to dig up dirt on the president in the early days of his candidacy. The dossier alleges that [ http://www.businessinsider.com/carter-page-trump-russia-igor-sechin-dossier-2017-1 ] Page was part of a "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between (Trump associates) and the Russian leadership." It alleges that Igor Sechin, the CEO of Russia's state oil company Rosneft, offered Page the brokerage of a 19% stake in the company in exchange for the lifting of US sanctions on Russia when Page was in Moscow last July. While there, the dossier alleges, Page also met with senior Kremlin internal affairs official Igor Diveykin, whom US officials believe was responsible for the intelligence collected by Russia about the US election. Page traveled to Moscow again in December to meet with Rosneft officials, he told reporters at the time. Page denied all of the allegations throughout five separate interviews and more than 10 hours of questioning from the FBI, according to The Washington Post, which first broke the news [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-has-questioned-trump-campaign-adviser-carter-page-at-length-in-russia-probe/2017/06/26/1a271dcc-5aa5-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html (excerpted above)]. He has called accusations that he served as a liaison an "illegal" form of "retribution" for his speech at the New Economic School last July, in which he slammed the US for a "hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." That the FBI questioned Page about accusations made in the dossier, however, indicates that the bureau is using the document as a "roadmap [ http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-dossier-fbi-investigation-2017-3 ]" for its investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, as the BBC's Paul Wood reported [ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786 ] in March. [...] http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-taking-cues-from-russia-dossier-2017-6
--
U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump’s Leadership America still wins praise for its people, culture and civil liberties June 26, 2017 Although he has only been in office a few months, Donald Trump’s presidency has had a major impact on how the world sees the United States. Trump and many of his key policies are broadly unpopular around the globe, and ratings for the U.S. have declined steeply in many nations. According to a new Pew Research Center survey spanning 37 nations, a median of just 22% has confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs. This stands in contrast to the final years of Barack Obama’s presidency, when a median of 64% expressed confidence in Trump’s predecessor to direct America’s role in the world. The sharp decline in how much global publics trust the U.S. president on the world stage is especially pronounced among some of America’s closest allies in Europe and Asia, as well as neighboring Mexico and Canada. Across the 37 nations polled, Trump gets higher marks than Obama in only two countries: Russia and Israel. In countries where confidence in the U.S. president fell most, America’s overall image has also tended to suffer more. In the closing years of the Obama presidency, a median of 64% had a positive view of the U.S. Today, just 49% are favorably inclined toward America. Again, some of the steepest declines in U.S. image are found among long-standing allies. Since 2002, when Pew Research Center first asked about America’s image abroad, favorable opinion of the U.S. has frequently tracked with confidence in the country’s president. Prior to this spring, one of the biggest shifts in attitudes toward the U.S. occurred with the change from George W. Bush’s administration to Obama’s. At that time, positive views of the U.S. climbed in Europe and other regions, as did trust in how the new president would handle world affairs. [...] http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/ [and see also in particular (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=132528054 and preceding and following]
Syria Will ‘Pay a Heavy Price’ for Another Chemical Attack, White House Says A man was helped to a hospital after a suspected toxic gas attack in northern Syria in April. The White House warned Monday that President Bashar al-Assad appeared to be preparing another such attack. JUNE 26, 2017 WASHINGTON — The White House said late Monday that President Bashar al-Assad [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/bashar_al_assad/index.html ] of Syria appeared to be preparing another chemical weapons attack, and warned that he would “pay a heavy price” if one took place. Several military officials were caught off guard by the statement from President Trump’s press secretary, but it was unclear how closely held the intelligence regarding a potential chemical attack was. In the statement, the White House said that Mr. Assad’s preparations appeared similar to the ones Western intelligence officials believe the Syrian government made before a chemical attack in April [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/syria-strike-trump-timeline.html ] that killed dozens of Syrians, including children. “As we have previously stated, the United States is in Syria to eliminate the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,” the statement said. “If, however, Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.” [...] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/syria-will-pay-a-heavy-price-for-another-chemical-attack-trump-says.html
White House releases ominous statement about another possible Syria chemical attack June 26, 2017 Updated June 27, 2017 WASHINGTON -- The White House issued a stern warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad on Monday night as it claimed "potential" evidence that Syria was preparing for another chemical weapons attack. In an ominous statement issued with no supporting evidence or further explanation, press secretary Sean Spicer said the U.S. "has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children." He said the activities were similar to preparations taken before April 2017 chemical attack [ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-chemical-weapon-attack-autopsies-turkey-says-trump-blames-assad-russia/ ] that killed dozens of men, women and children, and warned that if "Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price." [...] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/possible-syria-chemical-attack-mass-murder-civilians-innocent-children/ [with embedded video, and comments]
Senior Russian lawmaker accuses US of provocation over Syria Jun 27, 2017 MOSCOW (AP) — A senior Russian lawmaker has dismissed the United States’ warning about a potential chemical weapons attack in Syria as “provocation.” In a stern warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad Monday night, the White House claimed “potential” evidence that Syria was preparing for another chemical weapons attack. Assad had denied responsibility for the April 4 attack in the rebel-held Idlib province that killed dozens of people, and Russia, Assad’s key backer, sided with him. Days later, President Donald Trump launched a retaliatory cruise missile strike on a Syrian government-controlled air base. Frants Klintsevich, first deputy chairman of the defense and security committee at the upper chamber of the Russian parliament, on Tuesday accused the United States of “preparing a new attack on the positions of Syrian forces.” In comments to state-owned RIA Novosti, he added: “Preparations for a new cynical and unprecedented provocation are underway.” https://www.apnews.com/8f2940c4a55242f6b3384d58583eeaba/Senior-Russian-lawmaker-accuses-US-of-provocation-over-Syria
--
Sen. Brown: Senate health care bill "morally reprehensible"
All In with Chris Hayes 6/26/17
Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio says of Republicans and their Senate health care bill: 'It’s pretty morally reprehensible what they’re doing.' Duration: 2:23
Steve Schmidt: Republicans like lemmings jumping off cliffs
All In with Chris Hayes 6/26/17
Republicans falling in line on the health care bill have “the same genetic impulse that pulls the lemmings over a cliff,” says strategist Steve Schmidt. Duration: 4:37
Thing 1/Thing 2: The leaders of the largest democracies in the world comfortably embraced each other but notably declined to engage with the press. Duration: 1:44
Kushner hires prominent lawyer with extensive scandal experience
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/26/17
Rachel Maddow reports that Donald Trump son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner has hired a famed defense lawyer Abbe Lowell, who has represented a litany of clients through high profile political scandals and prosecutions. Duration: 4:10
Widespread activism keeps pressure on GOP health care law changes
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/26/17
Ezra Levin, co-founder of the "Indivisible" movement, talks with Rachel Maddow about the growth in reach of Indivisible activism, the success of organizing public outcry over Republican health care reform, and why Mitch McConnell drafted the Senate bill in secrecy. Duration: 16:55
New details make Kushner meeting with Russian bank even weirder
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/26/17
Rachel Maddow relays a description of Russia's state-run VEB bank as not being a bank in the traditional way, making Jared Kushner's meeting with the chairman of that bank during the Trump transition all the weirder. Duration: 5:31
Supreme Court keeps block on key parts of Trump Muslim ban
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/26/17
Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general, talks with Rachel Maddow about why the Supreme Court's response to the case against Donald Trump's Muslim is largely a loss for Trump and leaves a lot of questions to be answered. Duration: 6:51
Trump threatens Assad, citing evidence of chemical weapons prep
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/26/17
Rachel Maddow reports breaking news that the White House is claiming to have evidence of Syria preparing a chemical weapons attack and threatening Assad with "a heavy price" should such an attack take place. Duration: 2:58
Fmr. GOP congressman: Why I changed my mind on Obamacare
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 6/26/17
Lawrence O'Donnell talks to Ezra Klein about the "catastrophic" CBO report – which estimates 22 million people would lose health care coverage – and GOP Rep. David Jolly shares his personal story of what happened when he found himself unemployed and uninsured. Duration: 10:59
The New York Times Sunday published an extraordinary definitive list of the more than 100 lies Donald Trump has told as president. Lawrence O'Donnell talks to Stuart Thompson, who worked on the piece. Duration: 5:10
Kurt Andersen and Lawrence O'Donnell discuss Donald Trump's many lies in office and a new poll that shows only 36% now view the American president as "honest" – which comes as the Trump White House has decided to pick a fight with the press corps. Duration: 5:54
Report: Trump really wants Putin meeting at July European summit
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/26/17
Trump attacks Obama over Russia & a new report says his White House is divided over Trump's eagerness to meet with Putin at a July summit. Hallie Jackson, Eli Stokols, & Jonathan Lemire discuss. Duration: 8:41
Pres. Bush's Chief of Staff to Congress: Get your act together
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/26/17
Joining MSNBC's Brian Williams to discuss the GOP health care bill, former Bush White House Chief of Staff Andy Card says Republicans needed to do more offering an Obamacare alternative. Duration: 1:36
GOP Senate health care bill doesn't live up to Trump's promises
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/26/17
As a candidate, Donald Trump promised on health care he would 'take care of everybody.' But the CBO found the new GOP health care bill means millions would lose coverage. Our panel reacts. Duration: 6:42
Obama CIA boss Leon Panetta questions Trump's credibility
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/26/17
Discussing Pres. Trump's attacks on Pres. Obama over Russia's election meddling, Leon Panetta says he doesn't see much credibility with the current Commander in Chief. Duration: 3:46
What are spies around the world learning from Trump's tweets?
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/26/17
MSNBC's Brian Williams talks to CIA veteran Nada Bakos about her Washington Post report analyzing what foreign agents may be learning from Pres. Trump's Twitter feed. Duration: 4:13
Stephen Returns From Russia With An Apology For Trump
Published on Jun 27, 2017 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
Stephen reactivates his First Amendment rights and delivers his first monologue since returning from Russia, complete with the apology that the President tweet-demanded.
Stephen Leaks Drawings Of Sean Spicer's No-Camera Press Briefing
Published on Jun 27, 2017 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
When Sean Spicer banned cameras from White House Press Briefings, CNN sent a courtroom sketch artist. Turns out, Stephen has more depictions of the briefing from various artists.
Senate Trumpcare Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured: A Closer Look
Published on Jun 26, 2017 by Late Night with Seth Meyers
Seth takes a closer look at Trump's ever-changing story about why he fired James Comey and the latest GOP tactics for promoting their health care bill that could leave 22 million people uninsured.
this is part 10 of a 17-part post which proceeds (point arising on the given) day by (point arising on the given) day from June 17, 2017 through July 3, 2017 -- the preceding part is the post to which this is a reply; the next part is a reply to this post -- the following 'see also (linked in)' listing, updated for intervening posts along the way, is common to all 17 parts
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (any future other) following, see also (linked in):
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
