US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7233

The coal industry is divided over whether President Donald Trump should pull out of the Paris climate change agreement — with some producers hoping they could gain some economic leverage if he stays.

The top three U.S. coal producers — Peabody Energy, Arch Coal and Cloud Peak Energy — indicated in recent meetings with White House officials that they would not publicly object to sticking with the international accord, particularly if the administration can secure more financial support for technology to reduce pollution from the use of coal, according to industry officials and sources close to the administration.

Some Trump administration officials have been flirting with such a strategy, POLITICO reported earlier this month.

But that approach faces resistance from others in the industry, such as Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray, mirroring the broader split within the administration over the global climate deal.

Peabody, Arch and Cloud Peak hope to see their policy priorities reflected in the reworked domestic climate plan that the Trump administration would probably submit if it decides to stay in the 2015 Paris deal, the sources said. Together the three companies mine more than 42 percent of the coal produced in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration.

Arch spokeswoman Logan Bonacorsi praised the administration for reconsidering former President Barack Obama's climate change regulations for power plants and focusing instead on "driving progress on advanced, low-emissions fossil fuel technologies that will provide far greater benefits over time," but she did not directly address the company's position on the international deal.

We are confident that the Administration is taking these same priorities into consideration as it evaluates the way forward with regard to the Paris agreement,” Bonacorsi said.

Peabody did not respond to requests for comment, and a Cloud Peak spokesman declined to comment.

But other coal companies remain deeply opposed to the U.S. remaining in the Paris deal, arguing that the global effort to crack down on emissions could further harm the already-ailing industry. In the agreement, the U.S. and nearly 200 nations committed to take steps in the coming decades to sharply reduce their emissions of the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet.

Robert Murray, who has close ties to the Trump administration, called the deal "illegal" and a waste of taxpayer money in a February speech in Miami. Murray joined the president on Tuesday when Trump signed an executive order that took the first steps toward repealing key portions of Obama's climate agenda. His company is the largest private coal company in the country and, according to EIA, the fifth-largest overall producer.

The divide over Paris was briefly on display during a Monday conference call with members of the National Mining Association, according to two people familiar with the private exchange.

Amid a discussion about the possibility that the U.S. may not withdraw from the Paris agreement, Murray lobbyist Andrew Wheeler underscored the company's opposition to the accord. Sources stressed that Paris was not the focus of the discussion, which only briefly touched on the issue.

A National Mining Association spokesman declined to comment. A Murray Energy spokesman pointed to the company's previous opposition to the Paris deal.

On March 31 2017 07:52 KwarK wrote:

The individuals entrusted with the responsibility of serving in the United States Senate have a higher responsibility than the one they owe to their political party. They have a duty to ensure the Supreme Court is not left with vacant seats, that unqualified candidates are kept out and that qualified candidates are approved. Country before party. It doesn't matter whether the Democratic party gains.

WASHINGTON—Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.

As an adviser to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and later one of Mr. Trump’s top aides in the White House, Mr. Flynn was privy to some of the most sensitive foreign-policy deliberations of the new administration and was directly involved in discussions about the possible lifting of sanctions on Russia imposed by the Obama administration.

He has made the offer to the FBI and the House and Senate intelligence committees through his lawyer but has so far found no takers, the officials said.

Mr. Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, declined to comment.

It wasn’t clear if Mr. Flynn had offered to talk about specific aspects of his time working for Mr. Trump, but the fact that he was seeking immunity suggested Mr. Flynn feels he may be in legal jeopardy following his brief stint as the national security adviser, one official said.

On March 31 2017 08:20 biology]major wrote:
Also, another thing that has been bothering me in politics rn besides the gorsuch thing, is how this investigation is both publicly and privately being investigated. Since when is the media, and these committees, leaking pieces of the investigation on a daily basis, and continuing to form a narrative a good idea? Just stop talking about this russia thing until the FBI finishes their job. This is why we don't discuss ongoing investigations, because trump has already lost even though a conclusion hasn't even been reached yet. Everyday, a narrative is painted based on an INCOMPLETE investigation.

Receiving bits and pieces of the pie is both damaging and unfair to the persons being investigated, we need the entire thing to make conclusions.

On March 31 2017 08:16 LegalLord wrote:
Now the WSJ subscription is a wall that we're NOT going to pay for.

On March 31 2017 08:20 biology]major wrote:
Also, another thing that has been bothering me in politics rn besides the gorsuch thing, is how this investigation is both publicly and privately being investigated. Since when is the media, and these committees, leaking pieces of the investigation on a daily basis, and continuing to form a narrative a good idea? Just stop talking about this russia thing until the FBI finishes their job. This is why we don't discuss ongoing investigations, because trump has already lost even though a conclusion hasn't even been reached yet. Everyday, a narrative is painted based on an INCOMPLETE evidence.

Receiving bits and pieces of the pie is both damaging and unfair to the persons being investigated, we need the entire thing to make conclusions.

On March 31 2017 08:16 LegalLord wrote:
Now the WSJ subscription is a wall that we're NOT going to pay for.

On March 31 2017 08:20 biology]major wrote:
Also, another thing that has been bothering me in politics rn besides the gorsuch thing, is how this investigation is both publicly and privately being investigated. Since when is the media, and these committees, leaking pieces of the investigation on a daily basis, and continuing to form a narrative a good idea? Just stop talking about this russia thing until the FBI finishes their job. This is why we don't discuss ongoing investigations, because trump has already lost even though a conclusion hasn't even been reached yet. Everyday, a narrative is painted based on an INCOMPLETE evidence.

Receiving bits and pieces of the pie is both damaging and unfair to the persons being investigated, we need the entire thing to make conclusions.

On March 31 2017 08:36 zlefin wrote:

it is indeed unfortunate how politicized investigations are handled. (or really any high-profile investigation, after any major terror/other incident there's a lot of people wanting answers, and few want to wait for months until proper investigation is completed, they want answers NOW).
the republicans did the same thing with a great many investigations (both involving hillary and otherwise).

the problem is, people want information, so the media tries to give it to them. the information available at the time is often incomplete. so long as people pay for the info, media will provide it (since we have a free market and free media).


I see no particular solution; other than getting better people who are patient enough to wait (which would be going against the fundamentals of human nature, so pretty hard to do). do you have any proposed solutions?

On March 31 2017 08:26 Gorsameth wrote:

The investigation would not be getting anywhere near this much coverage if the Republicans didn't constantly try to bury it.

Can you blame the media and Democrats for being tight on it when you have people like Nunes all but cancel one of the investigations? When the White House tries to stop Sally Yates from testifying?

On March 31 2017 08:36 zlefin wrote:

it is indeed unfortunate how politicized investigations are handled. (or really any high-profile investigation, after any major terror/other incident there's a lot of people wanting answers, and few want to wait for months until proper investigation is completed, they want answers NOW).
the republicans did the same thing with a great many investigations (both involving hillary and otherwise).

the problem is, people want information, so the media tries to give it to them. the information available at the time is often incomplete. so long as people pay for the info, media will provide it (since we have a free market and free media).


I see no particular solution; other than getting better people who are patient enough to wait (which would be going against the fundamentals of human nature, so pretty hard to do). do you have any proposed solutions?

On March 31 2017 08:54 a_flayer wrote:


What about state-funded media operated by non-partisan reporters that doesn't rely on commercials or eyeballs but instead is judged by an independent 3rd party on the quality-level of their reporting? Put in some failsafe mechanism that prevents casual defunding without bipartisan consensus, maybe.

Also, didn't there used to be some kind of government mandate that ensured TV channels showed proper news, even if they didn't gain any advertisement money from it?

On March 31 2017 08:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Wanting immunity = a crime was committed.

edit #1

https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/847597989904265216