Look What these Attorneys General Agreed to Do

Constitution – by Michael Ware

There is no doubt there are times that one attorney general will share information with another.  There is also times that it is in the best interest of all parties that this information sharing was not made public.

If you are not ready to prosecute, then you will not want the suspects to destroy evidence.  This is important for the investigation so that the truth can be revealed.  But, what if the suspect is suspected of something that is not criminal?  

This is in a case that has recently come to light.

The Washington Times reports

Democratic attorneys general signed a secrecy agreement aimed at keeping private the details of their investigation into climate-change dissenters, according to documents released Thursday.

The Common Interest Agreement was signed in April and May by representatives for 17 attorneys general as part of their collaborative pursuit of fossil-fuel companies, academics and think tanks that challenge the narrative of catastrophic climate-change.

This means that though the people they were collecting information on and investigating had committed no crime, they were being treated as criminals.  Let this sink in for a moment.  They were under a massive investigation to collect information.  Information about messages and activities that were not illegal and should not be part of an investigation in the first place.

This is the kind of stuff that we would see in movies about Communist Russia in the Eighties.  And what this comes down to is the fact that these attorneys general want to silence those who oppose Climate Change.

As I reported, there have been calls from some to make such skeptics illegal.  In fact, the defense of these actions is unbelievable.

The Times continues

Critics have blasted the cooperative investigation as a free-speech violation intended to chill debate, while Mr. Schneiderman (Attorney General Massachusetts) has argued that climate-change “fraud” is not protected by the First Amendment.

But is this not stating a premise as a proof?  How can you be charged with fraud in a debate that is still on going?

Constitution