Lieu, Ted Rep

http://sd28.senate.ca.gov/ now in House

---

ai bill? zoe?

===

---

an 2 26

Legal and voting rights experts are sounding the alarm after a Washington Post bombshell report revealed that President Donald Trump — who has been insisting on federalizing voting and has issued an executive order to pressure states to require proof of citizenship for voter registration — is now being urged by activists to sign an executive order declaring a voting "emergency."

The proposed 17-page order would "unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting,” the Post reported, noting that the proposal "claims China interfered in the 2020 election" which would be the "basis to declare a national emergency."

Former Trump national security official Miles Taylor warned that the "biggest electoral crime in American history might be unfolding."

"The president cannot seize control of state-run elections by declaring a fake 'emergency.' There’s no statute that permits it," wrote Fair Fight Action communications director Max Flugrath. "Reviving debunked conspiracy theories to force changes before a major election is what politicians do when they believe they’re going to lose."

Flugrath added that the Post's reporting follows up on an October New York Times investigation which found "that Trump officials discussed a fake 'national emergency' to force new election rules on states. A DHS official said it could allow Trump to 'go around Congress' and take over elections."

“What a gift such a clearly unconstitutional executive order would be!" election security expert David Becker told CBS News' Scott MacFarlane. "Though divorced from legal and factual reality, it would enable the courts to invalidate this power grab well in advance of the election, and confirm the clear limits to fed'l interference in elections."

Prominent elections attorney Marc Elias wrote, "My team and I have been anticipating this for months. It is unconstitutional and illegal. The media should note: Last time he issued an EO about voting, we sued and won. If Trump issues such an order we will sue again and we will win again."

"Far right voices in Colorado," journalist Kyle Clark noted, "have long called for this step as a prelude to military tribunals and mass executions."

U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) said, that there is "no national emergency exception" to Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

"States regulate elections unless Congress passes law," he added, stating that is why Trump "desperately" wants to pass the SAVE Act, "to suppress voting."

The NAACP called the proposed executive order a "dangerous proposal," and "a direct assault on our democracy."

Former WBZ-TV anchor Liam Martin commented, "I tend to think even this SCOTUS would block an attempt to federalize elections. But what Trump and his team are doing is setting the stage to declare the midterms void and refuse to seat the new members. What do we do then?"

---

House Democrats establish AI working group as industry bolsters DC presence

December 9, 2025

•

In The News

Emily Wilkins

CNBC

House Democrats are forming a commission on artificial intelligence to position themselves as leaders on the issue as AI companies train their focus — and campaign contributions — on Washington, D.C.

The House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy, set to begin meeting this month, will work with AI companies, stakeholders and congressional committees that oversee aspects of the sector to help develop policy expertise.

The commission is a response to the growing presence of AI policy and AI companies around Washington.

AI companies are ramping up lobbying, opening offices close to the Capitol and launching campaigns through a super PAC with at least $100 million to spend on the midterm elections in 2026.

There has been a growing debate over AI, specifically related to an increasing number of individual state laws that could conflict with a federal standard.

OpenAI, Andreessen Horowitz and Google are lobbying to block state laws that regulate AI. Democrats have largely opposed that push.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., in a statement shared with CNBC about the working group, said Democrats are “ready, willing and able to lean into those issues so we can uplift the health, safety and economic well-being of the American people.”

Rep. Ted Lieu of California, Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Rep. Valerie Foushee of North Carolina will lead the commission. Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California and Rep. Frank Pallone of Massachusetts, the top Democrats on committees that cover AI, will serve as ex-officio co-chairs. All House Democrats will be invited to participate.

Lieu drew a line between how Republicans and Democrats have handled AI issues.

He slammed the Trump administration for proposing to sell advanced chips to China, striking revenue-sharing agreements and posting deepfake videos. Trump announced Monday that he will allow Nvidia to send advanced H200 chips to “approved customers” in China and elsewhere.

“House Democrats reject this misguided approach, which risks leaving Americans vulnerable and our competitiveness weakened,” Liu said in a statement. “Instead, Democrats will meet the moment by working with all stakeholders to develop smart, durable solutions that strengthen innovation and protect the public.”

Gottheimer said the group also wants to find ways to keep the U.S. “ahead of the curve” when it comes to AI and work with the larger industry.

“We need to ensure Congress is educated on these new technologies, that we’re putting the right policies and guardrails in place to grow and protect Americans,” he said in a statement.

The House previously had a bipartisan task force on AI that issued a report in December 2024, which laid out recommendations for action at both the congressional and executive levels.

Issues:Cybersecurity and Technology

---

no lnx 8 23 an

House Democrats call on Clarence Thomas to resign over 'stunning' corruption

Jake Johnson and Common Dreams August 11, 2023

Several House Democrats on Thursday pushed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to immediately resign after the investigative outlet ProPublica revealed fresh details about the powerful judge's billionaire-funded—and undisclosed—luxury vacations.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Thomas' "alleged actions are not just shocking, they are illegal."

"Disclosure laws like the ones Justice Thomas allegedly violated are meant to provide transparency and prevent corruption," Lieu added. "Justice Thomas' alleged actions don't just appear corrupt, they are corrupt because of the unprecedented scale of his ethical and legal violations. Justice Thomas has brought shame upon himself and eroded the credibility of the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas should resign immediately."

ProPublica reported Thursday that Thomas has taken at least 38 luxury trips on the dime of ultrawealthy executives and Republican donors, some of whom have had business interests reach the high court.

The outlet noted that "while some of the hospitality, such as stays in personal homes, may not have required disclosure, Thomas appears to have violated the law by failing to disclose flights, yacht cruises, and expensive sports tickets."

ProPublica's detailed account of the gifts Thomas has received for decades from a group of right-wing executives renewed outrage over the Supreme Court's lack of ethical standards. Unlike every other federal court in the U.S., the Supreme Court does not have a binding code of ethics, providing an opening for justices to take dozens of private jet flights and stay at luxury resorts with the help of conservative billionaires.

"No justice should accept these types of gifts,"Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said Thursday. "Thomas has repeatedly brought dishonor and ethical malpractice to our highest court. I reiterate my call that he must resign. This is exactly why we need SCOTUS ethics reform."

Rep. Pramila Jayapal(D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called Thomas' conduct "unprecedented," "stunning," and "disgusting," writing that it is "the height of hypocrisy to wear the robes of a SCOTUS [justice] and take undisclosed gifts from billionaires who benefit from your decisions."

"Resign," she added.

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.)joined his colleagues in demanding Thomas' resignation, slamming the right-wing justice as "corrupt as hell."

Thomas insists that he has "always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines," but the justice has a long history of failing to disclose key items, such as income that his wife has received from right-wing organizations.

In April, after ProPublicareported that Thomas has been taking undisclosed yacht and private jet trips funded by billionaire GOP megadonor Harlan Crow for more than two decades, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-N.Y.) toldThe Lever that she would be willing to draft articles of impeachment against Thomas if no other House member did so.

To date, no House lawmaker has unveiled articles of impeachment even as the Supreme Court's ethical crisis spirals further out of control. An impeachment vote against Thomas would stand no chance in the House, which is controlled by Republicans.

A few House Democrats nevertheless voiced support for an impeachment vote on Thursday.

Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) noted that she "called for a vote to impeach Justice Thomas if he would not resign back in April—before we even knew just how much farther his corruption goes thanks to ProPublica's reporting."

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), for her part, wrote Thursday, "Today's a good day to impeach Clarence Thomas."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

The $267,230 RV Clarence Thomas 'scrimped and saved to afford' was financed by wealthy friend: report ›

Why the worst may be yet to come for Clarence Thomas: report ›

'You want yachts? We got yachts': Hayes blasts 'kept man' Clarence Thomas over billionaire ties ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Factbox: Here are eight Trump associates arrested or convicted of ... ›

Here are the criminal investigations Donald Trump faces : NPR ›

Donald Trump's false comments connecting Mexican immigrants ... ›

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/ted-lieu/ lgbt

---

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick [AZ-2] and Rep. Ted Lieu [CA-33] are the newest co-sponsors! Please, go tell them thank you!10 21

---

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04**012017**/exxon-climate-investigation-jeff-sessions-attorney-general-trump

over the past year, the battle lines formed along partisan lines on the question of whether the Justice Department should launch a probe intoExxonMobil's stance on climate change.

The designated referee in that battle was to have been U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who received the formal letters staking out each side's position on an investigation.

One of those letters, sent by five Republican senators sympathetic to Exxon, carried the signature of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who isDonald Trump's choice to succeed Lynch as the next attorney general.

That letter argued that a federal investigation of Exxon would suppress debate on the validity of climate change and amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. Any investigation of the oil giant must be stopped immediately and no future probes initiated, Sessions and the other senators told Lynch.

If he is confirmed by the Senate to replace Lynch, Sessions will become the nation's top law enforcement officer and would hold ultimate authority on the future of any federal investigations of Exxon, making it highly unlikely that any investigation underway would proceed any further. Sessions did not respond to an interview request.

Sessions would have a seat at Trump's cabinet table alongside like-minded climate denialists tapped to run the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Departments of Commerce, Interior and Energy. And even if Rex Tillerson, Trump's choice for secretary of state, has acknowledged the scientific consensus that the risks of climate change are real and need to be dealt with, he has been the chief executive of Exxon for the past 10 years.

In other words, Sessions will fit comfortably into an administration loaded with supporters of the fossil fuel industry. That leaves little hope federal authorities will take action on Exxon, said Joel Schwartz, a former federal prosecutor who worked on the prosecution of the tobacco industry.

"If they don't see climate change as causing a problem then there is no crime to prevent; there is no wrong to right," Schwartz said. "Under their argument there can be no bad actors—just scientists with honest differences of opinion."

California Reps. Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier were among the first to call for Lynch to open a probe of Exxon. The two Democrats asked the attorney general to determine whether Exxon had violated federal law by "organizing a sustained deception campaign disputing climate science" and "failing to disclose truthful information" about climate change.

The request came in the wake of an investigative series ofstories published by InsideClimate News that reveals Exxon scientists were warning of potentially catastrophic effects of a buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels as early as 1977. (The Los Angeles Times laterpublished stories researched by the Columbia School of Journalism.)

The Justice Department confirmed in January that it had referred the request to the FBI for an initial inquiry, but no details were ever disclosed.

In May, Sessions was one of five Republican senators who demanded Lynch halt that preliminary investigation.

"We write today to demand that the Department of Justice (DOJ) immediately cease its ongoing use of law enforcement resources to stifle private debate on one of the most controversial public issues of our time—climate change," according to the letter.

Sessions was joined by Sens. Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, David Perdue and David Vitter in signing the letter that suggested a prosecution of Exxon would amount to prosecutorial misconduct.

"As you well know, initiating criminal prosecution for a private entity's opinions on climate change is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and an abuse of power that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct," they told Lynch.

David Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and former director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission, said the position staked out by Sessions and the others in the letter to Lynch is a signal Exxon will get a free pass at the federal level.

"That means it will be left to the state attorneys general to pick up the cudgel if there is going to be any holding Exxon accountable," he said.

But given Exxon's resources, its powerful allies in Congress and the ferocity it has shown in attacking the investigations being undertaken by New York and Massachusetts, other attorneys general may be reluctant to engage in litigation.

"They may believe it's the right thing to do, but they know they can't sustain the fight they will surely encounter," Vladeck said. "So Exxon...will go on about its business without being held accountable for its conduct."

Lieu and DeSaulnier, both Democrats from Southern California, are grudgingly accepting what lies ahead.

"It's not looking very encouraging," DeSaulnier said.

Lieu said he hopes the FBI will turn up enough evidence that cannot be ignored, but said, "I am pessimistic about the attorney general's office."

Exxon may also find a more agreeable Securities and Exchange Commission under the Trump administration. The SEC reportedly launched an investigation into how Exxon accounts for climate change impacts when it values its assets. Exxon has confirmed the SEC investigation and pledged its cooperation.

In the wake of the probe, Exxon announced in October that it was revising the estimated value of its Canadian tar sands reserves to conform to SEC guidelines.

On Wednesday, Trump announced lawyer Jay Clayton as his choice to replace Mary Jo White as SEC chair. Clayton has represented a number of Wall Street giants and could be instrumental in helping implement Trump's promise to scale back on financial regulation.

In addition to designating a chair, the new president likely will be making three other appointments this year to the five-member commission.

The commission is designed as a non-partisan body, and no more than three commissioners may belong to the same political party. Appointees are subject to confirmation by the Senate.

Yet Trump will shape the commission with conservative appointees who will be industry-friendly and lenient enforcers of regulatory rules, according to experts.

It's unlikely Trump will appoint commissioners explicitly opposed to investigating Exxon, saidAndrew Vollmer, a law professor at the University of Virginia and former deputy general counsel at the SEC. New Republican commissioners, however, are likely to share the president's ideological policy preferences, he said.

"The kind of people he will pick can influence and affect investigations," Vollmer said. "There is nothing improper about that as long as a commissioner does not have a conflict of interest."

Trump's appointee to head the SEC, for instance, could instruct the SEC's enforcement division to stop a particular investigation, he said. But that carries the risk of alienating staff and exposing the commission to public criticism, making the power more theoretical than real, he said.

Still, he said, "the chair has the power."

If allegations of wrongdoing came from a whistleblower, then the SEC would be mandated to conduct a summary investigation of Exxon, according to according toBevis Longstreth, a former SEC commissioner who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. But even then, it need only be a cursory look to satisfy the statutory requirements that the credibility of whistleblower complaints be weighed, Longstreth said.

"I don't think you can look to the SEC—given what will be its be makeup—to do very much in the way of an Exxon investigation," he said.

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/complete-bombshell-former-top-usps-official-reveals-disturbing-new-details-of-dejoy-selection-and-mnuchin-sabotage-of-mail-service

no lnx vid twt

"Complete bombshell’: Former top USPS official reveals ‘disturbing’ new details of DeJoy selection and Mnuchin sabotage of mail service

Written by Common Dreams August 21, 2020

In his first public remarks since resigning from the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors in protest at the end of April, David Williams on Thursday offered a number of alarming new details surrounding the selection of Trump megadonor Louis DeJoy as postmaster general and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s efforts to exert influence over mail operations and finances.

Williams, the former vice chairman of the USPS Board of Governors with decades of federal government experience, testified to the Congressional Progressive Caucus that what he witnessed in his final months at the Postal Service was unprecedented, detailing how Mnuchin required members of the supposedly independent board to “come to his office to kiss the ring and receive his blessing before confirmation” and made “illegal” demands of officials.

“Corruption, plain and simple. Not only is Louis DeJoy a Trump crony and clearly unqualified to be Postmaster General but he also has significant financial conflicts of interest that make him eager to destroy the USPS altogether. We won’t let him.”

—Rep. Pramila Jayapal

“The Secretary has called over board members to provide instructions and requests and express his displeasure, which is really striking. I’m not sure I’ve run into that before, where one department is trying to run another department,” said Williams, who previously served as USPS inspector general. “Normally you would simply reject the effort and report it to Congress.”

Williams told lawmakers that the removal of USPS mailboxes in several states was specifically advocated by Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive who was reportedly involved in the recruitment of DeJoy for the postmaster general position.

“The blue boxes were maybe the most interesting of all,” said Williams, a Democrat who was appointed to the Board of Governors by President Donald Trump. “Those were not part of ongoing plans. To my knowledge, as a matter of fact… Secretary Mnuchin wanted that done. His study of the Postal Service asked that it be done.”

In response to Williams’ account of Mnuchin’s interference at the independent agency, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said the treasury secretary should be called—and, if necessary, subpoenaed—to testify before Congress.

“This hearing is a complete bombshell,” tweeted David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, which first reported that Williams resigned from the Board of Governors in protest.

Williams also offered an inside look at the process that led to the Board of Governors’ selection and May appointment of DeJoy, a former logistics executive with zero experience working for the Postal Service.

Asked whether the board interviewed other qualified candidates for the postmaster general role, Williams answered in the affirmative and characterized DeJoy as uniquely unfit for the job, recounting that he had to be coached through his interviews. Williams said DeJoy’s appointment was pushed by John Barger, a board member and Republican donor who—according to Williams—helped DeJoy “finish a number of sentences where he got stuck” and “explained to the board what Mr. DeJoy meant during the presentation.”

Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.) called Williams’ description of the selection process “very, very disturbing.” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Williams’ testimony was “stunning.”

Williams’ revelations came just hours before DeJoy is set to appear before the Republican-controlled Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where he is expected to face questions about his sweeping policy changes that caused massive mail backlogs across the nation.

A day after DeJoy vowed to suspend the operational changes until after the November election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that the postmaster general “frankly admitted” to her that he has “no intention of replacing the sorting machines, blue mailboxes, and other key mail infrastructure that have been removed and that plans for adequate overtime, which is critical for the timely delivery of mail, are not in the works.”

In a letter to the USPS Board of Governors on Wednesday, 90 House Democrats demanded the immediate removal of DeJoy for using his brief tenure as postmaster general “to sabotage the United States Postal Service.”

“Despite recent claims by Mr. DeJoy that implementation of certain changes may be delayed,” the lawmakers wrote, “he has already done considerable damage to the institution and we believe his conflicts of interest are insurmountable.”

---

It is shameful!’: Democrat Ted Lieu corners Mike Pompeo before he runs off to CPAC and avoids more questions

Alex Henderson

Some Democrats have been highly critical of the response by President Donald Trump’s administration to the threat of coronavirus, which according to CNN, has killed more than 2800 people worldwide.…

c ded v an 120 ~ Ted L

...Is Mar-a-Lago a nexus for Trump’s apparent influence peddling and corruption?

Anywhere Trump shows up is a nexus for his influence peddling and corruption. It could be his golf courses or Mar-a-Lago or somewhere else. Gift-giving is a form of currency, influence-buying. Certainly Trump knows that he can buy loyalty from people. And what’s a better way to buy loyalty than if you’re president of United States and you know you’re going to assassinate the No. 2 guy in Iran and that it’s going to move markets.

On Jan. 2, the markets were up big. Soleimani was assassinated at one in the morning, Baghdad time, after the markets here had closed. There was some night trading, which was obviously going to make the markets go down the next day. Killing Gen. Soleimani was going to make the Middle East much more unstable. And what better way to reward your buddies — who were already your buddies, because they’re at Mar-a-Lago, to begin with, on New Year’s Eve — than with this little gift? It’s not hard to figure out what’s going on.

How would one send those signals? How does insider trading work?

Who are the people who know what is going to happen? Who knows about the trade docs? Steve Mnuchin, Robert Lighthizer, Wilbur Ross. Larry Kudlow, Donald Trump, Trump’s kids, Trump’s son-in-law. These people who do have knowledge of certain events are either giving gifts to friends or trying to continue to buy loyalty. What I think is more likely is that there are surrogate traders who are making these trades with inside information. They make the money and then stash it in some sort of account to be gotten back to after they leave office. But again, I don’t know. The people who would know are not cooperating. The head of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange said that my article in October should have been written in crayon because it was so childlike.

To reiterate: The people who were supposed to be watching and regulating are somehow complicit, looking away, indifferent, etc.?..

---

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ted-lieu-devin-nunes-lev-parnas-shove-it_n_5e2275eac5b674e44b985f5c

...Lieu posted the first page of a letter from an attorney for Nunes threatening a lawsuit — and his own letter back.

It’s not clear from the single page of the lawyer’s missive specifically what the threatened lawsuit would address, though it mentions Nunes’ right to an “unimpaired reputation.” Lieu’s letter indicates that it would involve his allegations in December that Nunes conspired with indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas in the Ukraine scheme to smear Joe Biden.

The lawsuit threat is particularly ironic now that newly released records have revealed extensive links between Nunes aide Derek Harvey and Parnas.

By his own admission, Parnas worked to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation into unfounded accusations against the former vice president. He has said he was following Donald Trump’s wishes as communicated to him by Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney.

The House report on Trump’s impeachment last month also revealed phone logs of several calls between Nunes and Parnas.

“I received your letter ... in which you state your client Congressman Devin Nunes will sue me if I don’t, among other actions, issue a public apology to Devin Nunes,” Lieu wrote to Nunes’ attorney in the letter he posted on Twitter. “It is true that I stated Congressman Nunes worked with Lev Parnas and conspired to undermine our own government.”

Lieu warned that “truth is a defense” and then snapped: “I welcome any lawsuit from your client and look forward to taking discovery of Congressman Nunes. Or, you can take your letter and shove it.”...

---

who invited her?

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/trump-fan-candace-owens-goes-down-in-flames-as-rep-ted-lieu-plays-her-bizarre-hitler-remarks-in-a-public-hearing/

no lnx twt

For over a year Republicans and right-wing activists have been promoting the false claim that conservatives are being “silenced” and marginalized on social media platforms. GOP lawmakers love the idea, despite it being entirely false, because it allows them to continue the victimization belief that is at the center of Trumpism: “If only liberals and brown people weren’t part of America we could go back to the way things were” idea. Things were never the way they think they were.

On Tuesday the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism, which was also to “foster ideas about what social media companies can do to stem white nationalist propaganda and hate speech online,” according to the Committee.

Democrats invited representatives from the Anti-Defamation League, Google, Facebook, and other organizations. Republicans invited Turning Point USA’s communications director Candace Owens.

Owens is infamous for her remarks that appeared to be supportive of Hitler, in which she said: “Whenever we say nationalism, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler.”

“But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine,” Owens, speaking in London at a TPUSA recruitment event, said. “The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalise. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. To me, that’s not nationalism.”

In fact, Hitler didn’t want to just have “things run well,” he wanted to – and did – exterminate tens of millions of people, including Jews, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities, and many more.

Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) played those remarks during Tuesday’s hearing.

Embedded video

CSPAN

@cspan

.@RepTedLieu plays recording of Candace Owens: "I don't know Ms. Owens. I'm not going to characterize her. I'm going to let her own words do the talking. So, I'm going to play for you the first 30 seconds of a statement she made about Adolf Hitler."

8,725

10:54 AM - Apr 9, 2019

4,689 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Owens responded, only to embarrass herself further. Her remarks were so offensive the Chairman of the Committee, Jerry Nadler (D-NY) was forced to interject and instruct her that she was not allowed to disparage Members of Congress during a hearing in the manner in which she did.

Embedded video

CSPAN

@cspan

Candace Owens: "I think it's pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip…That was unbelievably dishonest…I'm deeply offended by the insinuation of revealing that clip without the question that was asked of me."

41.1K

10:55 AM - Apr 9, 2019

20.8K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Owens accuses Rep.Lieu of being dishonest and playing a selected clip from the entire video. It should be noted that the question that was asked of her when she made her remarks appearing to defend Hitler had nothing to do with Hitler. She chose to bring up Hitler.

Her remarks when publicized were so offensive that Turning Point USA chapters wrote letters denouncing her.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-inspector-general-probing-collusion-with-monsanto_us_59372108e4b0aba888b99dca

6/17

The inspector general for the Environmental Protection Agency is initiating a probe into possible collusion between a former high-ranking EPA official and Monsanto, the maker of the herbicide glyphosate, according to a letter the IG sent to a lawmaker last Friday that HuffPost has obtained.

The inspector general’s move comes in response to a request from Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) for an investigation into whether the EPA staffer colluded with the agricultural giant to bias research on glyphosate, a key component of the product Roundup. His request was based on media reports of documents released in the course of a lawsuit against Monsanto alleging glyphosate causes cancer, and that the company may have spun research and hired scientists to cover this up.

“As you are aware, there is considerable public interest regarding allegations of such collusion,”wrote Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins Jr. in his response to Lieu, dated May 31. “As a result, I have asked the EPA OIG Office of Investigations to conduct an inquiry into several agency review-related matters.”

The EPA and Lieu did not immediately return requests for comment for this story.

Documents released in the lawsuit reference internal Monsanto emails mentioning Jess Rowland, who was previously a manager in the EPA’s pesticide division, allegedly bragging to company officials in April 2015 that he could “kill” investigations into glyphosate. A Monsanto regulatory affairs manager sent an email to colleagues that said Rowland had told him, “If I can kill this I should get a medal.”

At the time of the email, Monsanto was apparently seeking Rowland’s help to shut down a review of glyphosate within the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Rowland retired from the EPA last year, and plaintiffs’ lawyers have been deposing him about allegations that Monsanto may have funneled money to himthrough third parties.

....

https://www.alternet.org/environment/exxonmobils-support-carbon-tax-total-sham

ExxonMobil executives just had another opportunity to convince skeptics that their support for a carbon tax is genuine.

They blew it.

On July 23, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL-26) introduced a bill that would place a $24 per ton tax on carbon emissions and dedicate 70 percent of the revenue to rebuilding U.S. infrastructure. ExxonMobil’s reaction? “We appreciate Rep. Curbelo’s effort to help generate a constructive discussion on this important issue” was all a company spokesman was willing to say.

ExxonMobil’s reluctance to seriously engage, however, should not come as a surprise.

Yes, the company has consistently paid lip service to a carbon tax since 2009. And yes, it is a founding member of the Climate Leadership Council—which supports a $40 per ton carbon tax—and it recently endorsed Americans for Carbon Dividends, a new bipartisan lobby group promoting a carbon tax that would return revenues to taxpayers.

But more telling is the fact that the oil giant has never publicly supported a carbon tax bill and consistently funds members of Congress who oppose a carbon tax.

How does that square with the company’s avowed position?

Just say no

It doesn’t.

Curbelo’s bill is hardly the first carbon tax legislation that ExxonMobil has snubbed. When Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA-33) asked ExxonMobil lobbyists to support a carbon tax bill in 2015, they refused. And when Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) introduced the “American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act” in 2016, the company would not endorse their bill or lobby on its behalf.

https://www.alternet.org/justice-department-releases-fisa-applications-accused-trump-adviser-carter-page-conspiring-russian

no lnx

Justice Department Releases FISA Applications That Accused Trump Adviser Carter Page of 'Conspiring With the Russian Government'

"That the FISA materials hurt the GOP narrative is not surprising since Rep. Devin Nunes admitted he never read the source documents on Carter Page. In fact, the first Nunes memo was such a disaster that I can't wait for the second one."

By Jake Johnson / Common Dreams July 22, 2018, 2:42 AM GMT

In an unprecedented and unusually timed document dump Saturday night, the Justice Department released a 412-page, partially redacted version of the FBI's 2016 FISA application requesting authorization to wiretap former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

"The FBI believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government," reads the FBI's application, which was ultimately approved by a federal court. The application goes on to accuse Page of "collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government."

The documents can be viewed here.

As Common Dreams reported, the FBI's surveillance of Page became a subject of "partisan sniping" earlier this year when Democrats and the GOP latched onto competing narratives about how Obama's Justice Department obtained permission to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser.

Aligning with President Donald Trump, Republicans alleged in a memo drafted by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that the FBI's surveillance of Page amounted to an abuse of power—an abuse Republicans don't typically care about when the privacy rights of ordinary Americans are at risk.

But as Splinter's Dell Cameron and Jack Mirkinson note, the Nunes memo "turned out to be self-defeating for the GOP for several reasons." They explain:

First, it charged that in seeking the secret surveillance warrant, federal investigators had failed to inform judges that key evidence was obtained from a biased source—the so-called Steele dossier, which was initially written by former British spy Christopher Steele on behalf of Democrats. But a response memo published by the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee later debunked the accusation, revealing that the court had in fact been informed of the source’s political bias.

The memo also backfired by inadvertently confirming that the Steele dossier was not the primary factor jumpstarting the Russia inquiry. Instead, it acknowledged events previously reported by the New York Times: A former Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, came under the scrutiny of investigators in July 2016 after boasting that Russia had dirt on then-candidate Hillary Clinton to an Australian diplomat in London.

Responding to the newly released FISA documents on Saturday, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) wrote: "That the FISA materials hurt the GOP narrative is not surprising since Rep. Devin Nunes admitted he never read the source documents on Carter Page.In fact, the first Nunes memo was such a disaster that I can't wait for the second one."

In a tweet early Sunday morning, Trump asserted—citing the right-wing advocacy group Judicial Watch—that the documents actually prove that the GOP's narrative was correct, and that the FBI "misled the courts."

"Witch Hunt Rigged, a Scam!" Trump added.

The FISA documents were released on Saturday in response to Freedom of Information Act requests by numerous news outlets and advocacy groups.

As Charlie Savage of the New York Times observes, "The spectacle of the release was itself also noteworthy, given that wiretapping under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, is normally one of the government's closest-guarded secrets. No such application materials had apparently become public in the 40 years since Congress enacted that law."

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/off-act-tulsi-gabbard-2479880368.html

9/17

Rep.Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) introduced the Off Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act (OFF Act) last week. This visionary bill comes as the nation bears witness to the devastation being brought by the climate change-super charged storm Harvey to Texas and Louisiana and braces for Irma's impacts. Storms like this and other extreme weather events will become all the more frequent and intense unless bold action is taken. Gabbard's bill—the strongest yet introduced in Congress—will put us on a path towards avoiding increased climate chaos: It will place a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects and move the country to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035, with a focus on a rapid transition in the next ten years. The bill is co-sponsored by Representatives Nanette Barragan (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL).

http://www.alternet.org/environment/monsanto-caught-warning-epa-about-activists

Recent news is revealing to the mainstream public that Monsanto has been covering up the carcinogenic effects of its best-selling glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup. Congressman Ted Lieu has called for a congressional hearing on glyphosate and the possible collusion.

Growing evidence is exposing the cozy and corrupt relationship between the chemical company and the EPA, which is supposed to be regulating its products.

Following the exposure of emails between Jess Rowlands of the EPA and Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto employee, one of the supporters of my group, Moms Across America, visited the EPA portal FOIA where they found and alerted me to a particular email. This separate email was also sent by Jenkins and addressed to four individual EPA employees.

In this previously undisclosed email, Jenkins clearly warned the EPA that Moms Across America, Dr. Edward Group, Truth in Labeling and a few others were demonstrating in Washington, D.C. at the Food Justice Rally against glyphosate in October 2015. This was the same time period that the EPA was expected to release a decision about the approval or denial of the license for glyphosate. The delay continues, and Roundup continues to pollute our food, water, air, streams, babies and children.

This email brings up a few important questions. What type of relationship does this Monsanto employee have in which he feels it is appropriate to warn the EPA of activists' behavior? Should chemical companies have relationships like this with taxpayer-funded federal employees? And in order to have this level of familiarity with so many important officials at the EPA, using what other forms of communication, and how often, have Monsanto employees colluded with the EPA, especially regarding the pending approval or denial of the license for glyphosate?

Representative Lieu told me he is concerned by reports that Monsanto and an EPA employee engaged in inappropriate conduct to stifle reviews of glyphosate. He has called for the EPA to look into any potential misconduct. Several other House Members have also expressed support. After over 20 years of deceitful slogans, the façade of a “sustainable agriculture company” is quickly unraveling for Monsanto. Consumers, parents, Congress members, doctors and scientists are seeing the Big Ag company for what it really is: a huge racket with the intention of colluding with and influencing public officials to retain their shareholder profits.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29092016/lamar-smith-extends-exxon-subpoena-climate-investigations-new-york-massachusetts-sec

...Smith has said his ongoing investigation of the New York and Massachusetts probes has been motivated by his belief that the attorneys general are on a politically motivated witch hunt. But an investigation by the SEC signals non-partisan interest by an agency which ordinarily does not operate under political influence.

Members of Congress including Rep. Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, hadwritten the agency last October, citing news reports in InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times, and requesting that the SEC "investigate ExxonMobil's past filings to determine if securities laws were violated by failing to appropriately disclose material risks related to climate change."

The current probe, disclosed by The Wall Street Journal, signals the SEC's interest in whether Exxon fully disclosed the financial risk to its investors posed by climate change.

The SEC requires companies like Exxon to disclose potential decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions. Such a decrease could pose a material risk to investors.

Smith has said there is a need to know whether there are any adverse effects related to the New York and Massachusetts attorneys generals' investigations that might hinder scientific research and development. Smith recently held hearings in the face of the refusal by Eric Schneiderman of New York and Maura Healey of Massachusetts to comply with subpoenas to hand over records.

Smith's letter to the SEC echoed that same theme.

...

March 30, 2016

By VALERIE VOLCOVICI

Reuters

Two California Democratic congressmen on Wednesday urged the California Public Employees Retirement System, the largest U.S. public pension fund, to divest from oil giant ExxonMobil over its handling of the issue of climate change. Congressmen Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier sent a letter to CalPERS CEO Anne Stausboll, saying it is "morally suspect" for the $300 billion pension fund "to invest in a company that engaged in morally reprehensible conduct" on climate change

---

A trio of House Democrats is asking the Department of Justice to investigate Royal Dutch Shell’s “deception” on climate change science.Reps. Ted Lieu (Calif.), Peter Welch (Vt.) and Matt Cartwright (Pa.) cited reports in the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate News to accuse Shell of working with Exxon Mobil Corp. to lie to the public about climate change and the impact from fossil fuels.“The alleged behavior by multiple actors suggests there was a conspiracy between Shell, ExxonMobil and potentially other companies in the fossil fuel industry,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch.“We request the DOJ investigate whether Shell violated, or conspired to violate, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, or other laws,” they said.The letter represents an escalation of the Democrats’ fight against Exxon, which started last year with previous reports by the Times and InsideClimate.The publications reported that Exxon had a good grasp of climate science as early as the 1970s and was at the cutting edge of research. But it later downplayed the dangers and sowed doubt about climate change as part of its efforts to fight numerous policies to cut carbon emissions.== http://grist.org/grist-50/profile/ted-lieu/ When it comes to climate change, the residents of California’s 33rd district are in for a rough ride. They’re already experiencing record heat and severe drought, and with the Pacific lapping at their feet, rising sea levels and ocean acidification aren’t far away. They also have a congressman who recognizes climate change as one of the greatest threats facing humanity.Born in Taiwan and raised in Ohio, Ted Lieu has now lived in California for more than a decade. He joined the House of Representatives last January, after serving four years as a California state senator. In April, he introduced the Climate Solutions Act — a bill that would set national goals for emissions reductions, renewable portfolio standards, and energy efficiency standards. He modeled the legislation, now under review in a congressional committee, after the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which set similar goals for the state of California back in 2006.In September of last year, when news broke that Exxon knew about climate change in the ’70s and didn’t do anything about it, Lieu became one of the first to call for a federal investigation into whether the company broke the law by keeping its mouth shut. And in December, he co-wrote a letter to the CEOs of six of the nation’s leading fossil fuel companies, asking them to disclose what they knew about climate change and when.Lieu spoke with Grist about preparing for climate change, holding oil executives accountable for their actions, and engaging his constituents in environmental advocacy. Below are excerpts from the conversation, condensed and edited for clarity.When did environmental issues become a passion of yours?The environment was always an issue I had cared about, but it wasn’t until I saw the movie An Inconvenient Truth that it caused an emotional reaction in me. It was clear to me that this is essentially the one issue that we need to address. All of us each day deal with a thousand issues, but this’ll be the one that could kill humanity as a species if we don’t address it.What would the Climate Solutions Act accomplish?One of the reasons AB 32 has worked well in California is it didn’t say, “Here are 493 specific things to do to reduce carbon pollution.” AB 32 basically said, by 2020, we’re going to go to pre-1990 levels in terms of greenhouse gases, and then it gave the California Air Resources Board the authority to get the state there. What my federal bill does is it sets a goal of reducing carbon pollution by 40 percent in 2035 and by 80 percent in 2050, and it tells the Environmental Protection Agency, “You now have the regulatory power and authority to take our nation to those goals.”In California, even though the population has increased, the energy usage has largely remained flat, and that’s because there are incredible energy efficiency laws in California in terms of its building codes, in terms of other regulations. So the second part of the bill tells the Department of Energy to set nationwide energy efficiency standards and then to ratchet them up every few years. The third part of the bill sets a nationwide renewable portfolio standard. That’s something that California has. There are some other states looking at doing it, and I think we should have it nationally, and that will move us toward much cleaner power.Why did you decide to take the lead in holding Exxon accountable for what it knew about climate change?I thought the allegations were very shocking — that Exxon scientists essentially confirmed that climate change was happening in the 1970s and was largely being influenced by fossil fuels and that the company in fact went the other way in sort of denying the science and spreading this information. It reminded me of what the tobacco companies did in America, and I thought, “Well, I definitely know this is morally wrong. I now want to see if it’s also illegal.”So that’s why I have now written two letters — both of those letters with other members of Congress. One is to the U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, asking for an investigation. The second is to the Securities Exchange Commission, also asking for an investigation.In America, companies do lie, and they do make false statements, and many times, nothing happens. But in the area of security law, if they lie and make false statements, that is not only illegal, but they will be prosecuted. And my belief, looking at the securities filings, is ExxonMobil did not adequately disclose the known risks of climate change that their scientists had confirmed decades ago, and that is a violation of securities law.“I think with every passing year, you get more and more bipartisan support to take action on climate change.”How does being a veteran influence your approach to climate change?When I talk about climate change, I always try to mention that it is part of U.S. national security. One of the things that makes America’s military totally awesome is that not only does it rely on technology and facts, it takes the world as it is. It’s not ideological. It doesn’t take the world as it thinks it should be or hopes it will be. Not only are some of our bases now going to be more at threat of being flooded, we also have climate change affecting food and water supplies in other parts of the world, which creates refugee issues and creates more conflicts, which then may draw the U.S. to engage in other parts of the world.The U.S. military also realizes that relying so much on fossil fuels is not the best way forward, partly because it takes a lot to transport and deliver fossil fuels to the units that need them, and we suffer a lot of casualties in different parts of the world simply trying to get fossil fuels delivered so our units could operate. If you could have them operate, for example, on solar power, it would be much easier, and you wouldn’t have the same transportation issues that you have now.If we could get people to think about climate change not just in them breathing better air but also affecting U.S. national security, I think that would also go a long way in getting legislation accomplished.How has the conversation around climate change shifted since AB 32 passed almost a decade ago?There is clearly much more momentum for climate change legislation now than there was a decade ago, and the public is much more cognizant of climate change because they’re seeing it. They’re experiencing hotter temperatures, they’re seeing more extreme weather events, they’re seeing more droughts. The voters are quite smart. They understand that when [more than 95 percent] of scientists all say the same thing, and their predictions come true 10, 20 years later, then generally that means that it’s true.You also see a shift in the conversation now, where 15 years ago, there were I think a fair number of people that actually thought climate change wasn’t happening. That is very few now. It’s now just the fringe, crazy people that say that. Even the conservative Republican legislators I talk to on the House floor now tend to say that climate change is happening. They might push back that it’s not being caused by humans but the conversation has shifted.You also see a dramatic shift in other countries acknowledging climate change and wanting to solve the issue. The U.S. and China embarked on a historic agreement [last] year on climate change, so now you have the two leading economies in the world working together to mitigate climate change — and it’s a pretty big deal for China to do this.I had the opportunity to go with leader Nancy Pelosi on a congressional delegation to China last [November]. I was one of six members selected to go with her, and one of the reasons was to follow up with president Xi Jingping’s visit to the United States in September and to talk about climate change and encourage further cooperation on that issue. I think it’s heartening to see Chinese officials talk about climate change and how they want to be part of the solution.Are you optimistic about the future of the Climate Solutions Act?Ultimately, yes. I’m very cognizant it’s not going to happen this term, especially during a presidential election. But I am optimistic that we will get this passed. We had some movement [last] year already with about 10 Republicans issuing a resolution saying that climate change is real, and we need to do something about it. I think with every passing year, you get more and more bipartisan support to take action on climate change. And my view of democracy is that — well, I have two views: One is that everything seems impossible until it happens and No. 2 is that the side with the facts ultimately wins in the end == AMY GOODMAN: The bombshell news of Exxon’s climate deception is now sparking calls for a federal investigation. On Tuesday, presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders wrote to Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging a Department of Justice probe of Exxon. Another Democratic hopeful, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, tweeted, quote, "We held tobacco companies responsible for lying about cancer. Let’s do the same for oil companies & climate change." Two House Democrats from California, Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier, also want a DOJ probe. In a letter to Lynch, they write, quote, "If these allegations against Exxon are true, then Exxon’s actions were immoral. We request the DOJ investigate whether ExxonMobil’s actions were also illegal." ===https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_49,_Amendment_to_Overturn_Citizens_United_Ruling_Question_(2014)Ted W. Lieu is a Democratic member of the U.S. House, representing California's 33rd Congressional District. Lieu won election to the U.S. House in 2014. He defeated Elan Carr (R) in the general election on November 4, 2014.[1]Lieu is a former member of the California State Senate, representing District 28 from 2011 to 2014.Lieu was also a Democratic member of the California State Assembly, representing the 53rd District from September 2005 to 2010. On February 12, 2009, he announced his candidacy for the statewide office of Attorney General, the seat being vacated by Democrat Jerry Brown, who won election as governor in November 2010.[2] He went on to lose the Democratic nomination to San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris on Tuesday, June 8, 2010, after placing fourth with nearly eleven percent of the vote.In June 2011, Governing Magazine named Lieu one of 12 "Democratic Legislators to Watch." Each of the legislators was selected on the basis of qualities such as leadership, ambition, and political potential.[3]BiographyLieu earned his bachelor's degree in computer and political science from Stanford University in 1991 and his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1994.Lieu is a Major in the United States Air Force Reserves. He previously served as an attorney in the Judge Advocate General Corps of the United States Air Force and was a Judicial Clerk in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.CareerBelow is an abbreviated outline of Lieu's academic, professional and political career:[4]