Podcasts about natural resources division

It may not be the "most" chub, but this unique native fish has a lot to offer! Kaitlyn Purington and Chance Broderius from the Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources offer a state perspective on the public value of the very cool Least Chub. Like chubs? You might like these episodes:S3:E51 Bonytail ChubS2:E7 Bluehead ChubS2:E6 Humpback ChubS1:E47 Lake Chub

The National Treasury Employees Union last year managed to get itself established as the bargaining unit for attorneys in two Justice Department division. The Civil Rights and Environmental and Natural Resources Division. Earlier this month, attorney Jeffrey Morrison challenged NTEU in an application for review before the Federal Labor Relations Authority. He got free help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The Foundation president, Mark Mix, joins me now with details. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The National Treasury Employees Union last year managed to get itself established as the bargaining unit for attorneys in two Justice Department division. The Civil Rights and Environmental and Natural Resources Division. Earlier this month, attorney Jeffrey Morrison challenged NTEU in an application for review before the Federal Labor Relations Authority. He got free help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The Foundation president, Mark Mix, joins me now with details. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This new episode focuses on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and its impact on administrative law, moderated by Norm Dupont, Of Counsel at Aleshire & Wynder. The discussion features Professor Lisa Heinzerling of Georgetown University Law, a leading scholar in environmental and administrative law, and John Cruden, a Principal at Beveridge & Diamond and former Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division. The panel examines the court's 6-3 ruling, which overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine, shifting the power of statutory interpretation from agencies to judges, now requiring judges to determine the "best interpretation" of ambiguous laws. Heinzerling provides context on the Chevron doctrine's 40-year application and potential alternatives, while Cruden discusses the implications for future cases from a private lawyer's perspective. Together, they explore the broader effects on administrative agencies, environmental policy, and statutory interpretation.

Mauricia Baca is the State Director of the Nevada Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. In this role, she leads TNC's efforts in Nevada across a wide range of conservation issues that are familiar to Mountain & Prairie listeners– the Colorado River, the Sagebrush Sea, and renewable energy. But Nevada is also home to some very unique conservation challenges related to biodiversity, mining for rare earth metals, groundwater for agriculture, and more. So I was excited to have this opportunity to learn from Mauricia about some of the specific challenges facing Nevada, TNC's solutions to these challenges, and how the lessons learned can be applied in other regions of the West. Mauricia was born in Mexico, grew up in New York City, and credits much of her love of nature and the environment to her childhood experiences exploring Central Park. After college, she served in the Peace Corps, worked as a community organizer in New York, and eventually attended law school. After four years of working as a prosecutor for the United States Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division, she moved to Nevada and began her first position with The Nature Conservancy, leading conservation work on the Truckee River. She has served as the State Director since November 2020, and, as you'll hear, all of her efforts are infused with a deep level of compassion, empathy, and gratitude. Mauricia has such a fascinating personal and professional trajectory, and there are many lessons to be learned from both her approach to her life and career, and the specifics of TNC's critical work in Nevada. We talked about her youth in Mexico and New York City, and how she has been committed to environmental work since she was a very young girl. We discuss her stint in the Peace Corps and how those experiences laid the groundwork for her current work with TNC. She shares some insights from switching from the litigation world to the conservation world, and she offers some wisdom for folks looking to make a similar transition. We discuss lithium mining, groundwater conservation, and climate change, and how TNC is making strides to protect biodiversity while balancing society's growing need for rare earth metals, water, and development. She also shares some wisdom gleaned from her recent battle with breast cancer, and discusses how her approach to work has changed since that life-altering health scare. A big thanks to Mauricia for being so open and thoughtful, and for sharing so many wonderful insights from her inspiring career. Be sure to check out the episode notes for links to everything we discussed and to watch Mauricia's recent TEDx talk, which serves as a great companion to this interview. Enjoy! --- Mauricia Baca The Nature Conservancy in Nevada Mauricia's TEDx talk Full episode notes and links: https://mountainandprairie.com/mauricia-baca/ --- This episode is brought to you in partnership with the Colorado chapter of The Nature Conservancy and TNC chapters throughout the Western United States. Guided by science and grounded by decades of collaborative partnerships, The Nature Conservancy has a long-standing legacy of achieving lasting results to create a world where nature and people thrive. On the last Tuesday of every month throughout 2024, Mountain & Prairie will be delving into conversations with a wide range of The Nature Conservancy's leaders, partners, collaborators, and stakeholders, highlighting the myriad of conservation challenges, opportunities, and solutions here in the American West and beyond. To learn more about The Nature Conservancy's impactful work in the West and around the world, visit www.nature.org --- TOPICS DISCUSSED: 4:00 - Mauricia's upbringing and early years in Mexico and New York City 7:00 - When she knew she wanted to devote her career to environmental work 9:15 - Legal training as thought training 11:45 - How the Peace Corps and other experiences helped her learn to build trust and relationships 16:45 - When TNC entered Mauricia's life as a next career step 19:45 - More details on how she was able to land her first job with TNC 24:00 - Career evolution within TNC 26:00 - Starting as TNC  State Director at the beginning of the pandemic 28:45 - Tackling climate-related challenges in Nevada and beyond 34:00 - The Atwood Preserve and the quiet beauty of the Mojave Desert 39:00 - TNC's work to preserve biodiversity in the face of lithium mining 43:45 - The importance of groundwater for Nevada's ag sector 49:00 - Working in partnership with Tribal communities 54:00 - Thinking locally and acting globally 56:00 - Lessons learned from Mauricia's recent cancer scare 1:03:30 - Favorite books 1:06:00 - Parting words of wisdom --- ABOUT MOUNTAIN & PRAIRIE: Mountain & Prairie - All Episodes Mountain & Prairie Shop Mountain & Prairie on Instagram Upcoming Events About Ed Roberson Support Mountain & Prairie Leave a Review on Apple Podcasts

The City's urban forester, Ryan Pieper, is back to discuss green spaces in our community. From micro forests to wildlife corridors, the Natural Resources Division is ramping up its efforts to create new habitats and build back forests. Check it out!

EELP senior staff attorney Sara Dewey speaks with Andy Mergen, Faculty Director of the Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School and former chief of the Appellate Section of the Environment & Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Andy and Sara discuss the origin and evolution of presidential authority to designate national monuments under the Antiquities Act, how Congress and the courts have responded to these designations over the act's 118-year history, present day legal challenges to the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, and what could be ahead for monuments in the Supreme Court. Transcript here https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/CleanLaw_EP97-final.pdf

In this episode, EELP Founding Director and Harvard Law Professor Jody Freeman, speaks with Andy Mergen, Faculty Director of the Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School and former chief of the Appellate Section of the Environment & Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Jody and Andy break down what they call the “Quagmire Quartet” of recent Supreme Court decisions that overturn the Chevron doctrine and undermine administrative agencies. They discuss the new challenges that federal agencies will face as they work to protect the public, the ways in which the Supreme Court has centralized power in the judiciary, how courts can continue to uphold important federal rules, and why they have hope. Transcript available at http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/CleanLaw_EP96-transcript.pdf

In this episode we talk about how to find oil & gas info using the Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM) website.  As before, we walk step-by-step how to find your minerals or royalties on a map to determine if you should be getting paid on a well. We also show you how to download important documents related to your wells, how to see how much oil & gas was produced in a given month, and more. This assumes you already know your legal description and the type of oil & gas interests you own.  Be sure to check out the accompanying YouTube video to see what we are talking about. If you would like to learn more about the topics covered in this episode as well as the different types of mineral and leasehold interests, from how to read a legal description, how to perform a title search, and how to identify nearby oil and gas activity, be sure to check out my Mineral Management Basics Online Course. As always, links to the resources mentioned in this episode can be found in the show notes at mineralrightspodcast.com.

Tune in as Marketing & Engagement Manager Laura Ansel chats with our newest division manager, Stefan Kalev, of the Natural Resources Division, to hear about their upcoming projects and events.

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, counties and states all across the nation (including Henrico) are beginning to host events related to the American Revolution. The Henrico County 250th Committee is tasked with planning the programming and events for the United States 250th anniversary celebration within Henrico County. The actual 250th anniversary of the U.S. will be in 2026, but the celebration in Henrico will commemorate many people and events from the American Revolution, beginning now and lasting until 2031, according to Julian Charity, the director of the History, Heritage and Natural Resources Division of the Henrico Department...Article LinkSupport the show

Adam Nielsen, Director of National Legislation & Policy Development reflects on his years at the Illinois Farm Bureau. Nielsen retires at the end of the month, after 23 years of service. Diane Fleming talks about her 50 years of service with IFB working with the state Women's Committee, youth programs and Young Leaders.Illinois Farm Bureau's Raghela Scavuzzo talks local foods. Megan Baker, a senior in the Neoga FFA Chapter speaks on her win in the National Agri-Science Fair in the Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources Division.

It's always exciting when more land is acquired for conservation in Florida, but have you ever asked what happens with the land? What if it's an active farm, grove, or ranch land? How does it return to a more natural condition? How is it managed from here on out? Who managed it? Etc. Mike Elswick is Manatee County's division manager of the Natural Resources Division in the county's Parks and Natural Resources Department. I live in Manatee County and often hear Mike speak at our Environmental Lands Management and Acquisition Committee meetings (which I serve on). Every time he speaks, I learn something new. I figured Mike would be a great guest to learn more about how much goes into managing land that we acquire here in Florida. Although he's speaking from a county management perspective, you'll hear it takes working with state, federal, nonprofit, and public entities to achieve our common goals on the land. It takes a village. Mike clearly loves the land and wants you to as well. There's a lot more to learn from him.Resources Mike mentioned about how he keeps him and his team educated:Ifas Extension ResourcesFlorida Forest Service - Fire Management ResourcesSupport Florida Uncut on Patreon for $5/month:https://patreon.com/user?u=11828064&utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=join_linkSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/florida-uncut/donations

Of all the things we have imported from Europe, the Quagga Mussel is an accidental stowaway that threatens all U.S. waters. They can clog city water-intake structures, agriculture pipes, and create havoc on docks, buoys, boat hulls, and beaches. An estimated $500 million a year is spent managing them in the Great Lakes alone. Bruce Johnson, Lieutenant AIS Field Operations Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife, shares in behind-the-scenes work to control these aquatic pests.

Hosts: Derek Brown and Taylor Morgan Senate Seat Open for 2024 Utah Senator Mitt Romney announced today he would not be running for reelection in 2024. We speak with Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson about his potential run for Senate, and Utah Republican Chair Robert Axson on the process now for the Republican party to replace the open seat next year. Police Fatal Shooting In Farmington Deemed Legally Justified Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings found the police officers who shot and killed Chase Allan, in Farmington back in March, were legally justified to use deadly force. We speak with KSL Legal Analyst Greg Skordas to break down the case. Rank Choice Voting In this election year, voters in Salt Lake, Utah, and Wasatch Counties will be using the Rank Choice Voting system in the municipal elections. Hosts Taylor and Derek break down how it works, and the pros and cons of using this system. AI In Political Ads This election season could look very different than years before, and it's all thanks to Artificial Intelligence. Matt Lusty, Partner at Election Hive & Honey Communications joins the show to discuss the positive and negative impacts AI could have on political campaigns. 2024 Redistricting Battle Redistricting could be key in the upcoming fight for the 2024 battle to win the House. After the 2020 census, new maps were drawn and the litigation has been rolling since. Derek and Taylor also discuss how Utah's power is also changing due to redistricting. Poaching In Utah most  It is hunting season in Utah, and many people are not aware poaching is also a problem this time of year. Chad Bettridge, Law Enforcement Captain at the Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources explains why people might accidentally be poaching animals, and how the community can help turn criminals in.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hosts: Derek Brown and Taylor Morgan It is hunting season in Utah, and many people are not aware poaching is also a problem this time of year. Chad Bettridge, Law Enforcement Captain at the Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources explains why people might accidentally be poaching animals, and how the community can help turn criminals in.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the first of two episodes, Quentin Pair discusses his career, which included serving as senior trial attorney for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for many years and working on environmental justice issues while at the EPA, with Phillip Dupré, a Senior Attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, ENRD - Environmental Defense Section, and past member of the Section's Leadership Development Program. This podcast was recorded in late 2020.

BlazeTV contributor Jaco Booyens and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Ryan Binkley joined the show to discuss the news that Hunter Biden's best friend and former business partner, Devon Archer, is turning on the Biden Crime Family by testifying before Congress next week. In his testimony, Archer is expected to admit that he witnessed then-Vice President Joe Biden on speakerphone with Hunter Biden as Hunter made calls to his overseas business partners. Archer will also reportedly testify that he witnessed Hunter call his father and introduce him to foreign business partners or prospective investors. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and President Biden are in a heated "Mexican standoff" over the state of the U.S.-Mexico border crisis. The Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division has confirmed its intention to pursue legal action against Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the attorney general regarding the construction of a floating barrier in the Rio Grande river. The DOJ claims the construction is unlawful under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. New York will now pay for sex workers' health care, including dental care. Twitter has a new name and a new face. Today's Sponsors: Birch Gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals. Here's what you need to do. Text the word WHY to 989898 to claim your free info kit on gold. With almost 20 years' experience converting IRAs and 401ks into precious metals IRAs, Birch Gold can help you. The Essentials Starter Kit — which features four of the most popular products from Naturally It's Clean — is a top-selling item, and you can get 15% off for a limited time when you go to http://www.NaturallyIt'sClean.com/Sara. These products are manufactured here in the USA, they support your conservative values, and on top of everything, they offer free, two-day shipping! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Do you need to be a Republican voter to run as a Republican candidate? Celeste Maloy, the winner of Utah's GOP convention for Congressman Chris Stewart's seat, was not a registered Republican when she filed to run. That raises a lot of questions-- how did this happen? Is this legal? Is this a problem for the state government or party leadership? KSL political reporter Lindsay Aerts joins the show to walk us through the complex situation.   Desantis plans to end birthright citizenship Governor Ron Desantis has flown from Florida to Texas to test out an immigration policy more right-leaning than former President Donald Trump's. If elected President, he promised to end birthright citizenship and send troops into Mexico to fight the cartels. Lead writer for Texas Tribune's political newsletter Renzo Downey joins the show to explain what Desantis is trying to accomplish.    State legislatures versus the Supreme Court The Supreme Court has struck down a North Carolina argument that the only body able to set its election laws is the state legislature. Meanwhile, Utah's own supreme court is considering a challenge to the voting district maps drawn by the legislature. Executive Director Katie Wright of the redistricting advocacy group Better Boundaries gives her perspective on both cases.    US Magnesium says it did NOT cause 25 percent of 2017's pollution US Magnesium, a mining company with a refinery next to the Great Salt Lake, is planning to challenge a study that blamed it for much of Utah's pollution in 2017. That study by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) found that the facility was responsible for up to a quarter of the pollution Utah saw that year. KSL Newsradio's Adam Small gives KSL At Night more of the details.  Death penalty for Idaho killings suspect? Last November, four students were murdered at the University of Idaho. Brian Koeberger was charged and is now in court in Moscow, Idaho. Prosecutors are now motioning for the possibility of the death penalty for Koeberger. NewsNation National Correspondent Alex Cabriello talks to Greg and Marty with the details.   Safety on the reservoirs and lakes in Utah Summer is here and that means activities on the lakes are starting to see an uptick of participants. Whether you are waterskiing, boating, fishing, parasailing, there's one thing everyone should be mindful of: safety. Ty Hunter of Utah's Department of Natural Resources - Division of Outdoor Recreation's talks about what Utahns should be doing to ensure a safe and fun summer.   Utah's footprint on the moon Shoot for the moon, and you might just land a permanent US base there. That's the hope of NASA, which has enlisted the University of Utah and other schools to innovate a way for astronauts to mine metal from the lunar surface. Graduate metallurgy research Collin Anderson is part of the Utah team, and he joins the show to share why this matters for US-led space travel.     See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hosts: Marty Carpenter and Greg Skordas Summer is here and that means activities on the lakes are starting to see an uptick of participants. Whether you are waterskiing, boating, fishing, parasailing, there's one thing everyone should be mindful of: safety. Ty Hunter of Utah's Department of Natural Resources - Division of Outdoor Recreation's talks about what Utahns should be doing to ensure a safe and fun summer.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our Nation's environmental laws and regulations are designed to foster the responsible use of natural resources while ensuring air, water, and land that is clean and safe for the citizenry as well as fish and wildlife. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and states are tasked with working cooperatively to ensure that these laws are faithfully enforced in a fair, consistent, and unbiased manner. Across industries, compliance with environmental laws is strongly influenced by corporate culture, or a collection of values, expectations, and practices established by a company's leaders and implemented through daily compliance-related activities performed by employees. But just as culture influences corporate behavior, it also influences government decisions regarding civil and criminal enforcement, including the targets of enforcement and the penalties and injunctive relief sought for violations. While general enforcement policies and priorities shift from administration to administration, the perception that individual enforcement actions are subject to partisan politics and outside influences risks erosion of the public trust and confidence in these same institutions.Co-hosted by The Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project and ConservAmerica, this panel, comprised of leading voices on environmental enforcement, will discuss past and current environmental enforcement priorities, policies and actions at EPA and DOJ, the value of transparency and impartiality in environmental enforcement, and share varying perspectives on the future of environmental enforcement in the United States. The panel will also explore ways to increase environmental compliance and integrity in enforcement decision-making. Featuring:Susan Bodine, Partner, Earth & Water Law, Former Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, United States Environmental Protection AgencyEric Schaeffer, Executive Director, Environmental Integrity Project Former Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, United States Environmental Protection AgencyDavid M. Uhlmann, Assistant Administrator (Nominee), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, United States Environmental Protection AgencyJeffrey Wood, Partner, Baker Botts LLP, Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of JusticeMichael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC

The Summit County Department of Health has launched a Climate Change and Public Health speaker series to talk about these pressing issues. The first of the three-event program was May 9 and focused on environmental health. Summit County Sustainability Program manager Emily Quinton and Darcy Glenn, researcher with the Woodwell Climate Research Center helped summarize and discuss the results of the first event. (2:06)Then, Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources' Paul Thompson discusses Utah's Endangered Species Mitigation Fund. $4.4 million was recently allocated to 42 projects this year. (28:21)

Hosts: Maura Carabello and Taylor Morgan Warmer temperatures mean bears are coming out of hibernation, and many Utahns plan on going hiking and camping. We call Darren DeBloois, Game Mammals Coordinator for the Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources for tips to stay safe from bears this summer.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hosts: Maura Carabello and Taylor Morgan Utah's Interim & Special Session This week, the Utah legislature not only begins their Interim Session but they have also been called to a special session by Governor Cox. KSL Newsradio Lindsay Aerts joins the show to discuss what her highlights are for this interim session. Representative Karianne Lisonbee walks us through the special session, and how they will plan to address the recent floods. News Roundup In today's news roundup, Maura and Taylor discuss an item in the Executive Appropriations committee that asks for funds for ballistics shields for the Utah legislature, the SLC Airport asking $600 million in new bonds, and more. St. George Mayor Axes Public Comments At Meetings Many people rely on their local meetings to voice their opinion on issues affecting them in the community. We have learned that St. George Mayor Michele Randall has gotten rid of public comments after what she calls growing divisiveness from residents.  Utah No Longer Under Severe Drought Utah is no longer under severe drought conditions after nearly four years. Rick Maloy, Water Conservation Manager at Central Utah Water Conservancy District discusses why even though there will be few water restrictions this year, we still need to conserve water. SCOTUS Takes Trump DC Hotel Dispute The Supreme Court will hear a case on whether Democratic lawmakers should be able to sue to obtain documents related to former President Trump's former Washington, D.C., hotel. We are joined by Zach Schonfeld, Legal Affairs Reporter at The Hill, who gives us the details of this story. Utah Voters On Trump A new Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll shows how Utahns are reacting to former President Donald Trump and his recent troubles with the law. Taylor and Maura go over the results of the poll. Tips To Avoid Conflicts With Bears This Summer Warmer temperatures mean bears are coming out of hibernation, and many Utahns plan on going hiking and camping. We call Darren DeBloois, Game Mammals Coordinator for the Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources for tips to stay safe from bears this summer.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this weeks episode we are gearing up for turkey season! We are joined by Dr. Marcus Lashley of the University of Florida, and The Wild Turkey Science Podcast, as well as Mark Wiley who serves as a biologist for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Wildlife. In this episode we discuss the ever growing need of good turkey habitat management, and what that all entails. For any serious turkey hunter this is a must listen podcast to prepare you for setting your property up for long-term success.   FOLLOW US HERE: Facebook:        https://www.facebook.com/HuntSciencePodcast YouTube:         https://www.facebook.com/HuntSciencePodcast Instagram:       https://www.instagram.com/huntscience_podcast/ Twitter:            https://twitter.com/HuntSciencePod Website:          http://www.huntsciencepodcast.com Email:              elance@huntsciencepodcast.com   If you would like to learn more about the podcast, head on over to our website at www.HuntSciencePodcast.com. Interested in wildlife management services? If so, please head on over to www.LansourceConsulting.com to see our service capabilities for your project needs! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Department of Justice's Environment & Natural Resources Division is tasked with enforcing the United States' civil and criminal environmental laws. In this episode, Justin Savage and Nicole Noelliste of Sidley Austin LLP talk with Todd Kim, the Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ ENRD, and Kate Konschnik, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of ENRD. The episode is part of The Enforcement Angle series, featuring conversations about state and federal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations with senior enforcement officials and thought leaders on environmental enforcement in the United States and globally.  ★ Support this podcast ★

Congressman Scott Perry, a Republican from Pennsylvania, introduced a little-known DOJ official named Jeffrey Clark to the President. While Clark was the Acting Head of the Civil Division and Head of the Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice, he was introduced to the President. Clark said that if Trump would change the leadership at the DOJ, he might be able to do more to support the President's claims about the election.

Congressman Scott Perry, a Republican from Pennsylvania, introduced a little-known DOJ official named Jeffrey Clark to the President. While Clark was the Acting Head of the Civil Division and Head of the Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice, he was introduced to the President. Clark said that if Trump would change the leadership at the DOJ, he might be able to do more to support the President's claims about the election.

The EPA has rescinded The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program rule. It has reinstated a waiver of Clean Air Act (CAA) preemption for California's greenhouse gas standards and Zero Emission Vehicle sales mandate. These are some facets to California's Advanced Clean Car Program.In Ohio v. EPA, now pending before the D.C. Circuit, various industry and state petitioners have challenged EPA's reinstatement of the waiver as preempted by the CAA; and have argued that Congress has not implicitly authorized it either. Numerous amici have weighed in on this issue as well. The D.C. Circuit soon will hear oral argument in this case, which eventually might make it to the Supreme Court.Raised by some amici, one of the pertinent issues here is that the federal government is showing favoritism to California in contravention of the Constitution's equal-sovereignty principle, which the Supreme Court has recognized in a long line of cases (most recently culminating in Shelby County v. Holder).This litigation update will feature a vital discussion from the eminent Jonathan Brightbill, who served as Acting Assistant Attorney General of the United States (leading the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, where he worked on the Trump Administration's One National Standards Rule), and who currently is a partner at Winston & Strawn LLP; Robert Percival, the Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law and the Director of the Environmental Program at the University of Maryland School of Law; and Sohan Dasgupta, who served as the Deputy General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and who is a partner at Taft LLP.Featuring:Jonathan Brightbill, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLPRobert Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law, University of Maryland Carey School of Law[Moderator] Sohan Dasgupta, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The January 6th Committee investigation is over and four criminal charges against former President Donald Trump have been referred to the Justice Department by the Committee. In this episode, hear a summary of 23 hours of testimony and evidence presented by the Committee which prove that former President Trump went to extraordinary and illegal lengths to remain President, despite losing the 2020 Election. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the shownotes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd266-contriving-january-6th Executive Producer Recommended Sources “PREPARED REMARKS: Sanders Files Amendment on Microchip Legislation to Restrict Blank Check Corporate Welfare.” Jul 19, 2022. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD228: The Second Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump The Final Committee Report “Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the Capitol,” [House Report 117-663] 117th Congress Second Session. Dec 22, 2022. U.S. Government Publishing Office. The January 6th Committee “Inside the Jan. 6 Committee.” Robert Draper and Luke Broadwater. Dec 23, 2022. The New York Times Magazine. 2020 Election Litigation “Litigation in the 2020 Election.” Oct 27, 2022. The American Bar Association. “‘Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered.'” Daniel Funke. Feb 9, 2021. PolitiFact. January 6th Security Failures “Capitol Attack: The Capitol Police Need Clearer Emergency Procedures and a Comprehensive Security Risk Assessment Process,” [GAO-22-105001] February 2022. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Electors and Vote Certification Process “Who Are Electors And How Do They Get Picked?” Domenico Montanaro. Dec 14, 2020. NPR. “About the Electors.” May 11, 2021. U.S. National Archives. John Eastman “Who is John Eastman, the Trump lawyer at the center of the Jan. 6 investigation?” Deepa Shivaram. Jun 17, 2022. NPR. “About Us.” The Federalist Society. “The Eastman Memo.” Trump and Georgia “The Georgia criminal investigation into Trump and his allies, explained.” Matthew Brown. Nov 22, 2022. The Washington Post. “Here's the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger.” Amy Gardner and Paulina Firozi. Jan 5, 2021. The Washington Post. AG Bill Barr Interview “In exclusive AP interview, AG Barr says no evidence of widespread election fraud, undermining Trump.” Mike Balsamo. Dec 11, 2020. “Barr tells AP that Justice Dept. hasn't uncovered widespread voting fraud that could have changed 2020 election outcome.” Dec 1, 2020. The Associated Press. Past Electoral Vote Challenges “Post Misleadingly Equates 2016 Democratic Effort to Trump's 2020 ‘Alternate Electors.'” Joseph A. Gambardello. Jun 29, 2022. FactCheck.org. “Democrats challenge Ohio electoral votes.” Ted Barrett. Jan 6, 2005. CNN. Fake Electors “What you need to know about the fake Trump electors.” Amy Sherman. Jan 28, 2022. PolitiFact. “Exclusive: Federal prosecutors looking at 2020 fake elector certifications, deputy attorney general tells CNN.” Evan Perez and Tierney Sneed. Jan 26, 2022. CNN. “American Oversight Obtains Seven Phony Certificates of Pro-Trump Electors.” Mar 2, 2021. American Oversight. Censure of Cheney & Kinzinger “Read the Republican Censure of Cheney and Kinzinger.” Feb 4 2022. The New York Times. Audio Sources 12/19/22 Business Meeting December 19, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol 10/13/22 Business Meeting October 13, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Featured speakers: Kayleigh McEnany, Former White House Press Secretary Molly Michael, Former Executive Assistant to the President Pat Cipollone, Former White House Counsel Clips Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Why would Americans assume that our Constitution, and our institutions, and our Republic are invulnerable to another attack? Why would we assume that those institutions will not falter next time? A key lesson of this investigation is this: Our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold, regardless of the political cost. We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time. Any future president inclined to attempt what Donald Trump did in 2020 has now learned not to install people who could stand in the way. And also please consider this: The rulings of our courts are respected and obeyed, because we as citizens pledged to accept and honor them. Most importantly, our President, who has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws, swears to accept them. What happens when the President disregards the court's rulings is illegitimate. When he disregards the rule of law, that my fellow citizens, breaks our Republic. January 6 Committee Lawyer: To your knowledge, was the president in that private dining room the whole time that the attack on the Capitol was going on? Or did he ever go to, again only to your knowledge, to the Oval Office, to the White House Situation Room, anywhere else? Kayleigh McEnany: The the best of my recollection, he was always in the dining room. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did they say, Mr. Meadows or the President, at all during that brief encounter that you were in the dining room? What do you recall? Gen. Keith Kellogg: I think they were really watching the TV. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Do you know whether he was watching TV in the dining room when you talked to him on January sixth? Molly Michael: It's my understanding he was watching television. January 6 Committee Lawyer: When you were in the dining room in these discussions, was the violence of capital visible on the screen on the television? Pat Cipollone: Yes. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania wrote, quote, "charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here." A federal judge in Wisconsin wrote, quote, "the court has allowed the former President the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits." Another judge in Michigan, called the claims quote, "nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were either destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden." A federal judge in Michigan sanctioned nine attorneys, including Sidney Powell, for making frivolous allegations in an election fraud case, describing the case as a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process. Recently, a group of distinguished Republican election lawyers, former judges and elected officials issued a report confirming the findings of the courts. In their report entitled "Lost, Not Stolen," these prominent Republicans analyzed each election challenge and concluded this: Donald Trump and his supporters failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. On December 11, Trump's allies lost a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court that he regarded as his last chance of success in the courts. Alyssa Farah: I remember maybe a week after the election was called, I popped into the Oval just to like, give the President the headlines and see how he was doing and he was looking at the TV and he said, "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?" Cassidy Hutchinson: Mark raised it with me on the 18th and so following that conversation we were in the motorcade ride driving back to the White House, and I said, like, "Does the President really think that he lost?" And he said, "A lot of times he'll tell me that he lost, but he wants to keep fighting it and he thinks that there might be enough to overturn the election, but, you know, he pretty much has acknowledged that he, that he's lost. 07/12/22 Select Committee Hearing July 12, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jason Van Tatenhove, Former Oath Keepers Spokesperson Stephen Ayres, January 6th Defendant Clips Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): According to White House visitor logs obtained by the Committee, members of Congress present at the White House on December 21 included Congressmen Brian Babin (TX), Andy Biggs (AZ), Matt Gaetz (FL), Louie Gohmert (TX), Paul Gosar (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Jody Hice (R-GA), Jim Jordan (OD), and Scott Perry (PA). Then Congresswoman-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) was also there. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): We've asked witnesses what happened during the December 21 meeting and we've learned that part of the discussion centered on the role of the Vice President during the counting of the electoral votes. These members of Congress were discussing what would later be known as the "Eastman Theory," which was being pushed by Attorney John Eastman. 06/28/2022 Select Committee Hearing June 28, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Cassidy Hutchinson, Former Special Assistant to the President and Aide to the Chief of Staff Clips 9:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Today's witness, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, is another Republican and another former member of President Trump's White House staff. Certain of us in the House of Representatives recall that Ms. Hutchinson once worked for House Republican whip Steve Scalise, but she is also a familiar face on Capitol Hill because she held a prominent role in the White House Legislative Affairs Office, and later was the principal aide to President Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. 10:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): In her role working for the White House Chief of Staff, Miss Hutchinson handled a vast number of sensitive issues. She worked in the West Wing, several steps down the hall from the Oval Office. Miss Hutchinson spoke daily with members of Congress, with high ranking officials in the administration, with senior White House staff, including Mr. Meadows, with White House Counsel lawyers, and with Mr. Tony Ornato, who served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff. She also worked on a daily basis with members of the Secret Service who were posted in the White House. In short, Miss Hutchinson was in a position to know a great deal about the happenings in the Trump White House. 24:20 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On January 3, the Capitol Police issued a special event assessment. In that document, the Capitol Police noted that the Proud Boys and other groups planned to be in Washington DC on January 6, and indicated that quote, "unlike previous post election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter protesters, as they were previously, but rather, Congress itself is the target on the Sixth. 27:45 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Of course the world now knows that the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6 had many different types of weapons. When a President speaks, the Secret Service typically requires those attending to pass through metal detectors known as magnetometers, or mags for short. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): The Select Committee has learned about reports from outside the magnetometers and has obtained police radio transmissions identifying individuals with firearms, including AR-15s near the Ellipse on the morning of January 6. Let's listen. Police Officer #1: Blue jeans and a blue jean jacket and underneath the blue jacket complaintants both saw the top of an AR 15. Police Officer #2: Any white males brown cowboy boots, they had Glock-style pistols in their waistbands. Police Officer #3: 8736 with the message that subject weapon on his right hip. Police Officer #4: Motor one, make sure PPD knows they have an elevated threat in the tree South side of Constitution Avenue. Look for the "Don't tread on me" flag, American flag facemask cowboy boots, weapon on the right side hip. Police Officer #5: I got three men walking down the street in fatigues and carrying AR-15s. Copy at Fourteenth and Independence. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): We're going to show now an exchange of texts between you and Deputy Chief of Staff Ornato, and these text messages were exchanged while you were at the Ellipse. In one text, you write, "but the crowd looks good from this vantage point, as long as we get the shot. He was f---ing furious." But could you tell us, first of all, who it is in the text who was furious? Cassidy Hutchinson: The he in that text that I was referring to was the President. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): And why was he furious, Miss Hutchinson? Cassidy Hutchinson: He was furious because he wanted the arena that we had on the Ellipse to be maxed out at capacity for all attendees. The advanced team had relayed to him that the mags were free flowing. Everybody who wanted to come in had already come in, but he still was angry about the extra space and wanted more people to come in. Cassidy Hutchinson: And that's what Tony [Ornato] had been trying to relate to him [President Trump] that morning. You know, it's not the issue that we encountered on the campaign. We have enough space. They don't want to come in right now, they have weapons they don't want confiscated by the Secret Service. They're fine on the Mall, they can see you on the Mall and they want to march straight to the Capitol from the Mall. But when we were in the off stage announced tent, I was part of a conversation -- I was in the, I was in the vicinity of a conversation -- where I overheard the President say something to the effect of you know, "I don't think that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me take the effing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in, take the effing mags away." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr said in an interview that the Department of Justice had now not found evidence of widespread election fraud, sufficient to change the outcome of the election. Ms. Hutchinson, how did the President react to hearing that news? Cassidy Hutchinson: I left the office and went down to the dining room, and I noticed that the door was propped open in the valet was inside the dining room changing the tablecloth off of the dining room table. The valet had articulated that the President was extremely angry at the Attorney General's AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Miss Hutchinson, Attorney General Barr described to the Committee the President's angry reaction when he finally met with President Trump. Let's listen. Former Attorney General Bill Barr: And I said, "Look, I I know that you're dissatisfied with me and I'm glad to offer my resignation" and then he pounded the table very hard. Everyone sort of jumped and he said "Accepted." Reporter: Leader McCarthy, Do you condemn this violence? Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): I completely condemn the violence in the Capitol. What we're currently watching unfold is un-American. I'm disappointed, I'm sad. This is not what our country should look like. This is not who we are. This is not the First Amendment. This has to stop and this has to stop now. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Did White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a Presidential Pardon related to January 6? Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon. Yes, ma'am. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): While our committee has seen many witnesses, including many Republicans, testify fully and forthrightly, this has not been true of every witness. And we have received evidence of one particular practice that raises significant concern. Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they'd been contacted by any of their former colleagues, or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony, without identifying any of the individuals involved. Let me show you a couple of samples of answers we received to this question. First, here's how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness's testimony. "What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I'm on the right team, I'm doing the right thing, I'm protecting who I need to protect, you know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World. And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee." Here's another sample in a different context. This is a call received by one of our witnesses. "A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he's thinking about you. He knows you're loyal, and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition." I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns. 06/23/22 Select Committee Hearing June 23, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jeffrey A. Rosen, Former Acting Attorney General Richard Donoghue, Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Steven Engel, Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Clips Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): From the time you took over from Attorney General Barr until January 3, how often did President Trump contact you or the Department to push allegations of election fraud? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: So between December 23 and January 3, the president either called me or met with me virtually every day, with one or two exceptions like Christmas Day Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ): Again, I join my colleagues in calling on Attorney General Barr to immediately let us know what he's doing. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ): We're already working on challenging the certified electors. And what about the court? How pathetic are the courts? Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): January 6, I'm joining with the fighters in the Congress, and we are going to object to electors from states that didn't run clean elections. Democracy is left undefended if we accept the result of a stolen election without fighting with every bit of vigor we can muster. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): The ultimate date of significance is January 6. This is how the process works. The ultimate arbiter here, the ultimate check and balance, is the United States Congress. And when something is done in an unconstitutional fashion, which happened in several of these states, we have a duty to step forward and have this debate and have this vote on the 6th of January. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So both the Acting Attorney General [Rosen] and I tried to explain to the President on this occasion, and on several other occasions that the Justice Department has a very important, very specific, but very limited role in these elections. States run their elections. We are not quality control for the states. We are obviously interested in and have a mission that relates to criminal conduct in relation to federal elections. We also have related civil rights responsibilities. So we do have an important role, but the bottom line was if a state ran their election in such a way that it was defective, that is to the state or Congress to correct. It is not for the Justice Department to step in. And I certainly understood the President, as a layman, not understanding why the Justice Department didn't have at least a civil role to step in and bring suit on behalf of the American people. We tried to explain that to him. The American people do not constitute the client for the United States Justice Department. The one and only client of the United States Justice Department is the United States government. And the United States government does not have standing, as we were repeatedly told by our internal teams. Office of Legal Counsel, led by Steve Engel, as well as the Office of the Solicitor General researched it and gave us thorough clear opinions that we simply did not have standing and we tried to explain that to the President on numerous occasions. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Let's take a look at another one of your notes. You also noted that Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Trump, quote, "DOJ can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election." How did the President respond to that, sir? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what I'm asking you to do. What I'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: There were isolated instances of fraud. None of them came close to calling into question the outcome of the election in any individual State. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And was representative Gaetz requesting a pardon? Eric Herschmann: Believe so. The general tone was, we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of, you know, the President's positions on these things. A pardon that he was discussing, requesting, was as broad as you could describe, from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things. He had mentioned Nixon and I said Nixon's pardon was never nearly that broad. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And are you aware of any members of Congress seeking pardons? Cassidy Hutchinson: I guess Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks, I know, both advocated for, there to be a blanket pardon for members involved in that meeting and a handful of other members that weren't at the December 21 meeting as the preemptive pardons. Mr. Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon and he was doing so since early December. I'm not sure why. Mr. Gaetz had reached out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr. Meadows about receiving a Presidential pardon. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did they all contact you? Cassidy Hutchinson: Not all of them, but several of them did. January 6 Committee Lawyer: So you'd be mentioned Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks. Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Biggs did. Mr. Jordan talks about congressional pardons but he never asked me for one. It was more for an update on whether the White House is going to pardon members of Congress. Mr. Gohmert asked for one as well. Mr. Perry asked for a pardon too, I'm sorry. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Mr. Perry, did he talk to you directly? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, he did. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Clark was the acting head of the Civil Division and head of Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Do either of those divisions have any role whatsoever in investigating election fraud, sir? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: No. And and to my awareness, Jeff Clark had had no prior involvement of any kind with regard to the work that the department was doing. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Is there a policy that governs who can have contact directly with the White House? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. So across many administrations for a long period of time, there's a policy that particularly with regard to criminal investigations restricts at both the White House and the Justice Department and those more sensitive issues to the highest ranks. So for criminal matters, the policy for a long time has been that only the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General from the DOJ side can have conversations about criminal matters with the White House, or the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General can authorize someone for a specific item with their permission. But the idea is to make sure that the top rung of the Justice Department knows about it, and is in the thing to control it and make sure only appropriate things are done. Steven Engel: The purpose of these these policies is to keep these communications as infrequent, and at the highest levels as possible, just to make sure that people who are less careful about it who don't really understand these implications, such as Mr. Clark, don't run afoul of those contact policies. Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: He acknowledged that shortly before Christmas, he had gone to a meeting in the Oval Office with the President. That, of course, surprised me. And I asked him, How did that happen? And he was defensive, he said it had been unplanned, that he had been talking to someone he referred to as "General Perry," but I believe is Congressman Perry, and that, unbeknownst to him, he was asked to go to a meeting and he didn't know it, but it turned out it was at the Oval -- he found himself at the Oval Office. And he was apologetic for that. And I said, Well, you didn't tell me about it. It wasn't authorized. And you didn't even tell me after the fact. You know, this is not not appropriate. But he was contrite and said it had been inadvertent and it would not happen again and that if anyone asked him to go to such a meeting, he would notify [Former Acting Deputy Attorney General] Rich Donohue and me. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): On the same day Acting Attorney General Rosen told Mr. Clark to stop talking to the White House, Representative Perry was urging Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to elevate Clark within the Department of Justice. You can now see on the screen behind me a series of tasks between representative Perry and Mr. Meadows. They show that Representative Perry requested that Mr. Clark be elevated within the department. Representative Perry tells Mr. Meadows on December 26, that quote, "Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down, 11 days to January 6 and 25 days to inauguration. We've got to get going!" Representative Perry followed up and says quote, "Mark, you should call Jeff. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won't work especially with the FBI. They will view it as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done." Mr. Meadows responds with "I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Mr. Donohue on December 28, Mr. Clark emailed you and Mr. Rosen a draft letter that he wanted you to sign and send to Georgia State officials. This letter claims that the US Department of Justice's investigations have quote, "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the state of Georgia." The letter also said this: quote, "in light of these developments, the Department recommends that the Georgia General Assembly should convene in special session," end quote, and consider approving a new slate of electors. Steven Engel: The States had chosen their electors, the electors had been certified, they'd cast their votes, they had been sent to Washington DC. Neither Georgia nor any of the other States on December 28, or whenever this was, was in a position to change those votes. Essentially, the election had happened. The only thing that hadn't happened was the formal counting of the votes. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: I had to read both the email and the attached letter twice to make sure I really understood what he was proposing because it was so extreme to me, I had a hard time getting my head around it initially. But I read it and I did understand it for what he intended and I had to sit down and sort of compose what I thought was an appropriate response. In my response, I explained a number of reasons this is not the Department's role to suggest or dictate to State legislatures how they should select their electors. But more importantly, this was not based on fact, that this was actually contrary to the facts, as developed by Department investigations over the last several weeks and months. So I responded to that. And for the Department to insert itself into the political process's way, I think would have had grave consequences for the country. It may very well have spiraled us into a Constitutional crisis. And I wanted to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation because he didn't seem to really appreciate it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): President Trump rushed back early from Mar-a-Lago on December 31, and called an emergency meeting with the Department's leadership. Mr. Donohue, during this meeting, did the President tell you that he would remove you and Mr. Rosen because you weren't declaring there was election fraud? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: Toward the end of the meeting, the President, again was getting very agitated. And he said, "People tell me I should just get rid of both of you. I should just remove you and make a change in the leadership, put Jeff Clark and maybe something will finally get done." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Rosen during a January 2 meeting with Mr. Clark, did you confront him again about his contact with the President? And if so, can you describe that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: We had -- it was a contentious meeting where we were chastising him that he was insubordinate, he was out of line, he had not honored his own representations of what he would do. And he raised again, that he thought that letter should go out. And we were not receptive to that. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): So in that meeting, did Mr. Clark say he would turn down the President's offer if you reversed your position and sign the letter? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. Subsequently, he told me that on the on Sunday the 3rd. He told me that the timeline had moved up, and that the President had offered him the job and that he was accepting it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): White House Call Logs obtained by the Committee show that by 4:19pm, on January 3, the White House had already begun referring to Mr. Clark as the Acting Attorney General. Let's ask about that, what was your reaction to that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Well, you know, on the one hand, I wasn't going to accept being fired by my subordinate. So I wanted to talk to the President directly. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So the four of us knew, but no one else, aside from Jeff Clark of course, knew what was going on until late that Sunday afternoon. We chose to keep a close hold, because we didn't want to create concern or panic in the Justice Department leadership. But at this point, I asked the Acting AG [Rosen], what else can I do to help prepare for this meeting in the Oval Office, and he said, You and Pat [Cipollone] should get the Assistant Attorney Generals on the phone, and it's time to let them know what's going on. Let's find out what they may do if there's a change in leadership, because that will help inform the conversation at the Oval Office. We got most, not all, but most of the AAGs on the phone. We very quickly explained to them what the situation was. [They] essentially said they would leave, they would resign en mass if the President made that change in the department leadership. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): DOJ leadership arrived at the White House. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: The conversation this point was really about whether the President should remove Jeff Rosen and replace him with Jeff Clark. And everyone in the room, I think, understood that that meant that letter would go out. And at some point, the conversation turned to whether Jeff Clark was even qualified, competent to run the Justice Department, which in my mind, he clearly was not. And it was a heated conversation. I thought it was useful to point out to the President that Jeff Clark simply didn't have the skills, the ability and the experience to run the Department. And so I said, "Mr. President, you're talking about putting a man in that seat who has never tried a criminal case, who's never conducted a criminal investigation, he's telling you that he's going to take charge of the department, 115,000 employees, including the entire FBI, and turn the place on a dime and conduct nationwide criminal investigations that will produce results in a matter of days. It's impossible. It's absurd. It's not going to happen, and it's going to fail. He has never been in front of a trial jury, a grand jury. He's never even been to Chris Wray's office." I said at one point, "if you walked into Chris Wray's office, one, would you know how to get there and, two, if you got there, would he even know who you are? And you really think that the FBI is going to suddenly start following you orders? It's not going to happen. He's not competent." And that's the point at which Mr. Clark tried to defend himself by saying, "Well, I've been involved in very significant civil and environmental litigation. I've argued many appeals and appellate courts and things of that nature." And then I pointed out that, yes, he was an environmental lawyer, and I didn't think that was appropriate background to be running in the United States Justice Department. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Did anybody in there support Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: No one. Along those lines, he [former President Trump] said, "so suppose I do this, suppose I replace him, Jeff Rosen, with him, Jeff Clark, what would you do?" And I said, "Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy [Clark], who I just declared was completely incompetent." And so the President immediately turned to to Mr. Engel. Steven Engel: My recollection is that when the President turned to me and said, "Steve, you wouldn't leave, would you?" I said, "Mr. President, I've been with you through four Attorneys General, including two Acting Attorneys General, but I couldn't be part of this." Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And I said, and we're not the only ones. No one cares if we resign. If Steve and I go, that's fine, it doesn't matter. But I'm telling you what's going to happen. You're gonna lose your entire Department leadership, every single AAG will walk out on you. Your entire Department of leadership will walk out within hours." And I said, "Mr. President, within 24...48...72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?" Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And then the other thing that I said was that, you know, look, all anyone is going to sort of think about when they see this...no one is going to read this letter....all anyone is going to think is that you went through two Attorneys General in two weeks until you found the environmental guy to sign this thing. And so the story is not going to be that the Department of Justice has found massive corruption that would have changed results of the election. It's going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark. I think at that point Pat Cipollone said, "Yeah, this is a murder suicide pact, this letter." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Cipollone, the White House Counsel, told the Committee that Mr. Engels response had a noticeable impact on the President, that this was a turning point in the conversation. Mr. Donohue, towards the end of this meeting, did the President asked you what was going to happen to Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He did. When we finally got to, I'd say, the last 15 minutes of the meeting, the President's decision was apparent, he announced it. Jeff Clark tried to scrape his way back and asked the President to reconsider. The President double down said "No, I've made my decision. That's it. We're not going to do it." And then he turned to me and said, "so what happens to him now?" Meaning Mr. Clark. He understood that Mr. Clark reported to me. And I didn't initially understand the question. I said, "Mr. President?" and he said, "Are you going to fire him?" And I said, "I don't have the authority to fire him. He's the Senate confirmed Assistant Attorney General." And he said, "Well, who has the authority to fire him?" And I said, "Only you do, sir." And he said, "Well, I'm not going to fire him." I said, "Alright, well, then we should all go back to work." 06/21/22 Select Committee Hearing June 21, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Rusty Bowers, Arizona House Speaker Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State Gabriel Sterling, Georgia Secretary of State Chief Operating Officer Wandrea ArShaye, “Shaye” Moss, former Georgia election worker Ronna Romney McDaniel, RNC Chair Justin Clark, former Trump Campaign lawyer Robert Sinners, former Trump campaign staffer Andrew Hitt, Former Wisconsin Republican Party Chair Laura Cox, Former Michigan Republican Party Chair Josh Roselman, Investigative Counsel for the J6 Committee John Eastman, Former Trump Lawyer Mike Shirkey, Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate Angela McCallum, Trump Campaign caller Rudy Giuliani Clips Josh Roselman: My name is Josh Roselman, I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol. Beginning in late November 2020. The President and his lawyers started appearing before state legislators, urging them to give their electoral votes to Trump, even though he lost the popular vote. This was a strategy with both practical and legal elements. The Select Committee has obtained an email from just two days after the election, in which a Trump campaign lawyer named Cleata Mitchell asked another Trump lawyer, John Eastman, to write a memo justifying the idea. Eastman prepared a memo attempting to justify this strategy, which was circulated to the Trump White House, Rudy Giuliani's legal team, and state legislators around the country and he appeared before the Georgia State Legislature to advocate for it publicly. John Eastman: You could also do what the Florida Legislature was prepared to do, which is to adopt a slate of electors yourself. And when you add in the mix of the significant statistical anomalies in sworn affidavits and video evidence of outright election fraud, I don't think it's just your authority to do that, but quite frankly, I think you have a duty to do that to protect the integrity of the election here in Georgia. Josh Roselman: But Republican officials in several states released public statements recognizing that President Trump's proposal was unlawful. For instance, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp called the proposal unconstitutional, while Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers wrote that the idea would undermine the rule of law. The pressure campaign to get state legislators to go along with this scheme intensified when President Trump invited delegations from Michigan and Pennsylvania to the White House. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Either you or speaker Chatfield, did you make the point to the President, that you were not going to do anything that violated Michigan law? Mike Shirkey: I believe we did. Whether or not it was those exact words or not, I think the words that I would have more likely used is, "we are going to follow the law." Josh Roselman: Nevertheless, the pressure continued. The next day President Trump tweeted quote, "hopefully the Courts and/or Legislatures will have the COURAGE to do what has to be done to maintain the integrity of our Elections, and the United States of America itself. THE WORLD IS WATCHING!!!!" He posted multiple messages on Facebook, listing the contact information for state officials and urging his supporters to contact them to quote "demand a vote on decertification." These efforts also involves targeted outreach to state legislators from President Trump's lawyers and from Trump himself. Angela McCallum: Hi, my name is Angela McCallum, I'm calling from Trump campaign headquarters in Washington DC. You do have the power to reclaim your authority and send us a slate of Electors that will support President Trump and Vice President Pence. Josh Roselman: Another legislator, Pennsylvania House Speaker Brian Cutler, received daily voicemails from Trump's lawyers in the last week of November. Cutler felt that the outreach was inappropriate and asked his lawyers to tell Rudy Giuliani to stop calling, but Giuliani continued to reach out. Rudy Giuliani: I understand that you don't want to talk to me now. I just want to bring some facts to your attention and talk to you as a fellow Republican. Josh Roselman: These ads were another element in the effort. The Trump campaign spent millions of dollars running ads online and on television. Commercial Announcer: The evidence is overwhelming. Call your governor and legislators demand they inspect the machines and hear the evidence. Fake electors scheme Casey Lucier: My name is Casey Lucier. I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol. On November 18, a lawyer working with the Trump campaign named Kenneth Chesebro wrote a memo arguing that the Trump campaign should organize its own electors in the swing states that President Trump had lost. The Select Committee received testimony that those close to President Trump began planning to organize fake electors for Trump in states that Biden won in the weeks after the election. At the President's direct request, the RNC assisted the campaign in coordinating this effort. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did the President say when he called you? Ronna Romney McDaniel: Essentially, he turned the call over to Mr. Eastman, who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing change the result of any dates, I think more just helping them reach out and assemble them. But the My understanding is the campaign did take the lead, and we just were helping them in that in that role. Casey Lucier: As President Trump and his supporters continued to lose lawsuits, some campaign lawyers became convinced that convening electors in states that Trump lost was no longer appropriate. Justin Clark: I just remember I either replied or called somebody saying, unless we have litigation pending this, like in the states, like, I don't think this is appropriate, or no, this isn't the right thing to do. I'm out. Matt Morgan: At that point, I had Josh Findlay email Mr. Chesebro, politely, to say, "This is your task. You are responsible for the Electoral College issues moving forward". And this was my way of taking that responsibility to zero. Casey Lucier: The Committee learned the White House Counsel's Office also felt the plan was potentially illegal. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And so to be clear, did you hear the White House Counsel's office saying that this plan to have alternate electors meet and cast votes for Donald Trump in states that he had lost was not legally sound? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, sir. Casey Lucier: The Select Committee interviewed several of the individual fake electors, as well as Trump campaign staff who helped organize the effort. Robert Sinners: We were just, you know, kind of useful idiots or rubes at that point. You know, a strong part of me really feels that it's just kind of as the road continued, and as that was failure, failure, failure that that got formulated as what do we have on the table? Let's just do it. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And now after what we've told you today about the Select Committee's investigation about the conclusion of the professional lawyers on the campaign staff, Justin Clark, Matt Morgan and Josh Findlay, about their unwillingness to participate in the convening of these electors, how does that contribute to your understanding of these issues? Robert Sinners: I'm angry, I'm angry. Because I think in a sense, you know, no one really cared if people were potentially putting themselves in jeopardy. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Would you have not wanted to participate in this any further, as well? Robert Sinners: I absolutely would not have had I know that the three main lawyers for the campaign that I've spoken to in the past, and were leading up, we're not on board. Yeah. Andrew Hitt: I was told that these would only count if a court ruled in our favor. So that would have been using our electors. Well, it would have been using our electors in ways that we weren't told about and we wouldn't have supported. Casey Lucier: Documents obtained by the Select Committee indicate that instructions were given to the electors in several states that they needed to cast their ballots in complete secrecy. Because the scheme involved fake electors, those participating in certain states had no way to comply with state election laws, like where the electors were supposed to meet. One group of fake electors even considered hiding overnight to ensure that they could access the State Capitol, as required in Michigan. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did Mr. Norton say who he was working with at all on this effort to have electors meet? Laura Cox: He said he was working with the President's campaign. He told me that the Michigan Republican electors were planning to meet in the Capitol and hide overnight so that they could fulfill the role of casting their vote per law in the Michigan chambers and I told him in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate. Casey Lucier: In one state, the fake electors even asked for a promise that the campaign would pay their legal fees if they got sued or charged with a crime. Ultimately, fake electors did meet on December 14, 2020 in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. At the request of the Trump campaign, the electors from these battleground states signed documents falsely asserting that they were the quote, "duly elected" electors from their state and submitted them to the National Archives and to Vice President Pence in his capacity as President of the Senate. In an email produced to the Select Committee, Dr. Eastman told the Trump campaign representative that it did not matter that the electors had not been approved by a state authority. Quote, "the fact that we have multiple slates of electors demonstrates the uncertainty of either. That should be enough." He urged that Pence "act boldly and be challenged." Documents produced to the Select Committee show that the Trump campaign took steps to ensure that the physical copies of the fake electors' electoral votes from two states were delivered to Washington for January 6. Text messages exchanged between Republican Party officials in Wisconsin show that on January 4, the Trump campaign asked for someone to fly their fake electors' documents to Washington. A staffer for Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson texted a staffer for Vice President Pence just minutes before the beginning of the Joint Session. This staffer stated that Senator Johnson wished to hand deliver to the Vice President the fake electors' votes from Michigan and Wisconsin. The Vice President's aide unambiguously instructed them not to deliver the fake votes to the Vice President. Even though the fake elector slates were transmitted to Congress and the Executive Branch, the Vice President held firm and his position that his role was to count lawfully submitted electoral votes. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Brad Raffensperger is the 29th Secretary of State of Georgia, serving in this role since 2019. As an elected official, and a Republican Secretary, Raffensperger is responsible for supervising elections in Georgia and maintaining the state's public records. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Speaker Bowers, thank you for being with us today. You're the speaker of the Arizona House and a self-described conservative Republican. You campaigned for President Trump and with him during the 2020 election. Is it fair to say that you wanted Donald Trump to win a second term in office? Please? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Thank you. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): And is it your understanding that President Biden was the winner of the popular vote in Arizona in 2020? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Before we begin with the questions that I had prepared for you, I want to ask you about a statement that former President Trump issued, which I received just prior to the hearing. Former President Trump begins by calling you a RINO, Republican in Name Only. He then references a conversation in November 2020, in which he claims that you told him that the election was rigged, and that he had won Arizona. To quote the former President, "during the conversation, he told me the election was rigged and that I won Arizona," unquote. Is that false? Rusty Bowers: Anywhere, anyone, anytime that has said that I said the election was rigged, that would not be true. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when the former President, in his statement today, claimed that you told him that he won Arizona, is that also false? Rusty Bowers: That is also false. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Mr. Bowers, I understand that after the election, you received a phone call from President Trump and Rudy Giuliani, in which they discussed the result of the presidential election in Arizona. If you would, tell us about that call. Rusty Bowers: Mr. Giuliani came on first. And niceties...then Mr. Trump, President Trump, then-President Trump came on. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): During the conversation did you ask Mr. Giuliani for proof of these allegations of fraud that he was making? Rusty Bowers: On multiple occasions, yes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when you asked him for evidence of this fraud, what did he say? Rusty Bowers: He said that they did have proof. And I asked him, "Do you have names?" [He said] for example, we have 200,000 illegal immigrants, some large number, five or six thousand, dead people, etc. And I said, "Do you have their names?" Yes. "Will you give them to me?" Yes. The President interrupted and said, "Give the man what he needs Rudy." He said, "I will." And that happened on at least two occasions, that interchange in the conversation. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you ever receive from him that evidence either during the call, after the call, or to this day? Rusty Bowers: Never. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): What was the ask during this call? Rusty Bowers: The ones I remember, were first, that we would hold -- that I would allow an official committee at at the Capitol so that they could hear this evidence, and that we could take action thereafter. I said, "to what end? To what end the hearing." He said, well, we have heard by an official high up in the Republican legislature that there is a legal theory or a legal ability in Arizona, that you can remove the the electors of President Biden and replace them. And we would like to have the legitimate opportunity, through the committee, to come to that end and and remove that. And I said that's, that's something that's totally new to me. I've never heard of any such thing. And I would never do anything of such magnitude without deep consultation with qualified attorneys. And I said, I've got some good attorneys, and I'm going to give you their names. But you're asking me to do something against my oath and I will not break my oath. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you also receive a call from US Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona on the morning of January 6? Rusty Bowers: I did. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And what did Mr. Biggs asked you to do? Rusty Bowers: I believe that was the day that the vote was occurring in each state to have certification or to declare the certification of the electors. And he asked if I would sign on both to a letter that had been sent from my State, and/or that I would support the decertification of the electors. And I said I would not. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Speaking Bowers, did the President call you again later in December? Rusty Bowers: He did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you tell the president in that second call that you supported him, that you voted for him, but that you are not going to do anything illegal for him? Rusty Bowers: I did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Nevertheless, his lawyer John Eastman called you some days later, and what did Dr. Eastman want you to do? Rusty Bowers: That we would, in fact, take a vote to overthrow -- or I shouldn't say overthrow -- that we would decertify the electors, and that we had plenary authority to do so. But I said, "What would you have me do?" And he said, "Just do it and let the court sorted out." And I said, "You're asking me to do something that's never been done in history, the history of the United States. And I'm going to put my state through that without sufficient proof? And that's going to be good enough with me? That I would, I would put us through that, my state that I swore to uphold, both in Constitution and in law? No, sir." Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): I want to look even more deeply at the fake electoral scheme. Every four years, citizens from all over the United States go to the polls to elect the President. Under our Constitution, when we cast our votes for president, we are actually voting to send electors pledged to our preferred candidate to the Electoral College. In December, the electors in each state meet, cast their votes, and send those votes to Washington. There was only one legitimate slate of electors from each state. On the Sixth day of January, Congress meets in a joint session to count those votes, and the winner of the Electoral College vote becomes the president. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Secretary Raffensburger, thank you for being here today. You've been a public servant in Georgia since 2015, serving first as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives, and then since January 2019, as Georgia Secretary of State as a self described conservative Republican. Is it fair to say that you wanted President Trump to win the 2020 election? Brad Raffensperger: Yes, it is. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Secretary Raffensperger, did Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and by what margin? Brad Raffensperger: President Biden carried the state of Georgia by approximately 12,000 votes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Bear in mind as we discuss this call today that by this point in time, early January, the election in Georgia had already been certified. But perhaps more important, the President of the United States had already been told repeatedly by his own top Justice Department officials that the claims he was about to make to you about massive fraud in Georgia were completely false. 06/16/22 Select Committee Hearing June 16, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Greg Jacob, Former Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence J. Michael Luttig, Retired judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and informal advisor to Mike Pence Julie Radford, Former Chief of Staff for Ivanka Trump Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Nicholas Luna, Former Assistant to President Trump Gen. Keith Kellogg, Former National Security Advisor to VP Pence Clips 16:45 Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Greg Jacob was Counsel to Vice President Pence. He conducted a thorough analysis of the role of the Vice President in the Joint Session of Congress under the Constitution, the Electoral Count Act, and 230 years of historical practice. But he also has firsthand information about the attack on the Capitol because he lived through it. He was with the Vice President and his own life was in danger. 31:05 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Eastman was, at the time, a law professor at Chapman University Law School. He prepared a memo outlining the nonsensical theory that the Vice President could decide the outcome of the election at the Joint Session of Congress on January 6. 32:50 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Dr. Eastman himself admitted in an email that the fake electors had no legal weight. Referring to the fake electors as, quote "dead on arrival in Congress" end quote, because they did not have a certification from their States. 46:40 Greg Jacob: We had a constitutional crisis in 1876 because in that year, multiple slates of electors were certified by multiple slates [sic]. And when it came time to count those votes, the antecedent question of "which ones?" had to be answered. That required the appointment of an independent commission. That commission had to resolve that question. And the purpose of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 had been to resolve those latent ambiguities. Now I'm in complete agreement with Judge Luttig. It is unambiguous that the Vice President does not have the authority to reject electors. There is no suggestion of any kind that it does. There is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the 12th amendment. And so the notion that the Vice President could do that certainly is not in the text. But the problem that we had and that John Eastman raised in our discussions was, we had all seen that in Congress in 2000, in 2004, in 2016, there had been objections raised to various states. And those had even been debated in 2004. And so, here you have an Amendment that says nothing about objecting or rejecting. And yet we did have some recent practice of that happening within the terms of the Electoral Count Act. So we started with that. 1:20:45 Greg Jacob: He again tried to say, but I don't think the courts will get involved in this. They'll invoke the political question doctrine and so if the courts stay out of it, that will mean that we'll have the 10 days for the States to weigh in and resolve it. And then, you know, they'll send back the Trump slates of electors, and the people will be able to accept that. I expressed my vociferous disagreement with that point, I did not think that this was a political question. Among other things, if the courts did not step in to resolve this, there was nobody else to resolve it. You would be in a situation where you have a standoff between the President of the United States and, counterfactually, the Vice President of the United States saying that we've exercised authorities that, Constitutionally, we think we have by which we have deemed ourselves the winners of the election. You would have an opposed House and Senate disagreeing with that. You would have State legislatures that, to that point, I mean, Republican leaders across those legislatures had put together, had put out statements, and we collected these for the Vice President as well, that the people had spoken in their States and that they had no intention of reversing the outcome of the election. We did receive some signed letters that Mr. Eastman forwarded us by minorities of leaders in those States, but no State had any legislative house that indicated that added any interest in it. So you would have had just a an unprecedented Constitutional jump ball situation with that standoff. And as I expressed to him, that issue might well then have to be decided in the streets. Because if we can't work it out politically, we've already seen how charged up people are about this election. And so it would be a disastrous situation to be in. So I said, I think the courts will intervene. I do not see a commitment in the Constitution of the question, whether the Vice President has that authority to some other actor to resolve there. There's arguments about whether Congress and the Vice President jointly have a Constitutional commitment to generally decide electoral vote issues. I don't think that they have any authority to object or reject them. I don't see it in the 12th Amendment, but nonetheless. And I concluded by saying, "John, in light of everything that we've discussed, can't we just both agree that this is a terrible idea?" And he couldn't quite bring himself to say yes to that. But he very clearly said, "Well, yeah, I see we're not going to be able to persuade you to do this." And that was how the meeting concluded. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): We understand that the Vice President started his day on January 4 with a rally in Georgia for the Republican candidates in the US Senate runoff. When the Vice President returned to Washington, he was summoned to meet with the President regarding the upcoming Joint Session of Congress. Mr. Jacob, during that meeting between the President and the Vice President, what theories did Dr. Eastman present regarding the role of the Vice President in counting the electoral votes? Greg Jacob: During the meeting on January 4, Mr. Eastman was opining there were two legally viable arguments as to authorities that the Vice President could exercise two days later on January 6. One of them was that he could reject electoral votes outright. The other was that he could use his capacity as Presiding Officer to suspend the proceedings and declare essentially a 10-day recess during which States that he deemed to be disputed, there was a list of five to seven states, the exact number changed from conversation to conversation, but that the Vice President could sort of issue and demand to the State Legislatures in those States to re-examine the election and declare who had won each of those States. So he said that both of those were legally viable options. He said that he did not recommend, upon questioning, he did not recommend what he called the "more aggressive option," which was reject outright, because he thought that that would be less politically palatable. The imprimatur of State Legislature authority would be necessary to ultimately have public acceptance of an outcome in favor of President Trump. And so he advocated that the preferred course of action would be the procedural route of suspending the Joint Session and sending the election back to the States. And again, the Vice President's first instinct here is so decisive on this question, there's just no way that the framers of the Constitution who divided power and authority, who separated it out, who had broken away from George III, and declared him to be a tyrant, there was no way that they would have put in the hands of one person, the authority to determine who was going to be President of the United States. And then we went to history. We examined every single electoral vote count that had happened in Congress since the beginning of the country. And critically, no Vice President, in 230 years of history, had ever claimed to have that kind of authority, hadn't claimed authority to reject electoral votes, had not claimed authority to return electoral votes back to the States. In the entire history of the United States, not once had a Joint Session, ever returned electoral votes back to the States to be counted. So the history was absolutely decisive. And again, part of my discussion with Mr. Eastman was, if you were right, don't you think Al Gore might have liked to have known in 2000, that he had authority to just declare himself President of the United States? Did you think that the Democrat lawyers just didn't think of this very obvious quirk that he could use to do that? And of course, he acknowledged Al Gore did not and should not have had that authority at that point in time. So at the conclusion of the meeting on the 4th, the President had asked that our office meet with Mr. Eastman the next day to hear more about the positions he had expressed at that meeting, and the Vice President indicated that....offered me up as his counsel, to fulfill that duty. We had an extended discussion an hour and a half to two hours on January 5. What most surprised me about that meeting was that when Mr. Eastman came in, he said, "I'm here to request that you reject the electors." So on the 4th, that had been the path that he had said, "I'm not recommending that you do that." But on the 5th, he came in and expressly requested that. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Mr. Jacob did you, Mr. Short, and the Vice President have a call later that day, again, with the President and Dr. Eastman? Greg Jacob: So, yes, we did. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): And what did Dr. Eastman requested on that call? Greg Jacob: On that phone call, Mr. Eastman stated that he had heard us loud and clear that morning, we were not going to be rejecting electors. But would we be open to considering the other course that we had discussed on the 4th, which would be to suspend the Joint Session and request that State Legislatures reexamine certification of the electoral votes? Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Trump issued a statement claiming the Vice President had agreed that he could determine the outcome of the election, despite the fact that the Vice President had consistently rejected that position. Mr. Jacob, how did the Vice President's team reacts to the stat

(From 12.03.22, Segment 3) Do you currently reside in the Charlotte area? If so, it is a common assumption that you have to travel to the mountains to get out of the city and into nature. The truth is there are plenty of nature preserves and natural resources in and around Charlotte, NC! This episode will share some awesome places to get some fresh air as Bill and Wes chat with Chris Matthews, Division Director for the Nature Preserve and Natural Resources Division at Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation. Need some shoes, water bottle, hat, or pack for the outdoors? Jesse Brown's Outdoors has it all!  

In today's episode, we are joined by Dr. Mike Tonkovich from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Wildlife. We review some current harvest data and discuss the hot topic of EHD and explain its effects on the herd. Then we discussed the DSA or disease surveillance area and the state's management of CWD.Before you start this episode, we recommend going back to episode 17, where we give you more details on Mike and his career, as well as a deeper dive into Chronic Wasting Disease. FOLLOW US HERE:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vanceoutdoorsincYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/vanceoutdoorsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/vanceoutdoorsincTwitter: https://twitter.com/vanceoutdoorsWebsite: https://www.vanceoutdoors.com/pursuitpodcast/Email: pursuitpodcast@vanceoutdoors.comJordan Unternaher | www.instagram.com/unternaher/Benjamin Johnson | www.instagram.com/ben_j/

In Today's episode of "Moment of Truth," Saurabh and Nick sit down with Jeff Clark, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Renewing America and former Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Justice Department, to discuss his experience serving in the Bush 43 and Trump 45 administrations, stories of biased politicking within the Department of Justice, his tenuous confirmation process, and what future administrations can do to counter the corrupt influence of both the deep state and administrative state.Jeff Clark is the former President Trump-selected and Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General of the Environment & Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Justice Department. From 2020-2021, Jeff was also named and simultaneously served as the former Acting Assistant Attorney General of DOJ's Civil Division. In this capacity, by the end of 2020, Jeff was responsible for supervising approximately 1,400 lawyers at DOJ. Jeff graduated from Harvard University in 1989 with an A.B. in economics and Russian history, from the University of Delaware in 1993 with an M.A. in urban affairs, and from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1995 with a J.D.Learn more about Jeff Clark's work:https://americarenewing.com/about/https://twitter.com/JeffClarkUSSupport Jeff's Legal Defensehttps://www.givesendgo.com/jeffclark––––––Follow American Moment across Social Media:Twitter – https://twitter.com/AmMomentOrgFacebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmMomentOrgInstagram – https://www.instagram.com/ammomentorg/YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4TcgRumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-695775Check out AmCanon:https://www.americanmoment.org/amcanon/Follow Us on Twitter:Saurabh Sharma – https://twitter.com/ssharmaUSNick Solheim – https://twitter.com/NickSSolheimAmerican Moment's "Moment of Truth" Podcast is recorded at the Conservative Partnership Center in Washington DC, produced by American Moment Studios, and edited by Jake Mercier and Jared Cummings.Subscribe to our Podcast, "Moment of Truth"ACast – https://shows.acast.com/moment-of-truthApple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/moment-of-truth/id1555257529Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/5ATl0x7nKDX0vVoGrGNhAj Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Monologue: 'Remain in Mexico' doesn't have to continue. The Interview: Jeff Clark (former Assistant Attorney General of the Environment & Natural Resources Division) breaks down the SCOTUS decision telling the EPA it can't just shut down entire industries. The Monologue: A gruesome murder in Shoreline. The Interview: Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX) on the crisis at the border and moves by Democrats post-Roe. LongForm: NRCC Chairman Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) weighs in on the Stay in Mexico decision, Roe's impact on the midterms, and if we're anywhere closer to sane energy policy. The Quick Hit: Cassidy Hutchinson testimony is falling apart, and Trump reacts. The Last Rantz It feels like Friday and I hate it. Also, we have too many holidays in the first half of the year. We should spread it out more.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Check out our sponsors: https://www.facebook.com/littlebuckeyemansfield Republicans, Democrats offer different slates for Mansfield City Council committees: https://www.richlandsource.com/news/republicans-democrats-offer-different-slates-for-mansfield-city-council-committees/article_bdc8d024-ddd1-11ec-8dea-1be9fc3b8ec9.html 371 Sandhill Cranes found in Ohio survey: https://www.richlandsource.com/life_and_culture/outdoor/371-sandhill-cranes-found-in-ohio-survey/article_09e8639e-d8a9-11ec-8923-b332911bc070.html Harold “Butch” Ross: https://www.knoxpages.com/obituaries/harold-butch-ross/article_06e868c0-d164-11ec-af25-3fa441679a62.html Today – Many votes taken by Mansfield City Council in recent years have been unanimous with Democrats and Republicans joining together. But last week two different party caucus sessions demonstrated division between the two parties. And later – Observers found 371 sandhill cranes in Ohio as part of the one-day Midwest Crane Count, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife. The survey was conducted in 24 preselected counties during the crane’s nesting season. Support the show: https://www.sourcemembers.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing the law, defending the interests of the United States, and ensuring public safety. This is no small task. It takes a team of committed public servants to support this mission. On this episode of the Blue View, we’re joined by U.S. Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, the third highest ranking official at the Justice Department. A friend of the FOP, Vanita has a long history of working with law enforcement to build support for policing and a common-sense approach to criminal justice. ⬛️ ⬛️ ⬛️ WATCH THIS EPISODE ➡️ https://youtu.be/N1lIbh1zUiY ⬛️ ⬛️ ⬛️ Vanita Gupta is the 19th United States Associate Attorney General and serves as the third-ranking official at the Department of Justice. Associate Attorney General Gupta supervises multiple litigating divisions within the Department of Justice, including the Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, Antitrust Division, Tax Division, and Environmental and Natural Resources Division. She also oversees the grant-making components of the Department, including the Office of Justice Programs, the Office on Violence Against Women, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; and supervises the Office of Information Policy, the Community Relations Service, the Executive Office for United States Trustees, and the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. Associate Attorney General Gupta previously served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the nation’s oldest and largest coalition of non-partisan civil rights organizations in the United States. Associate Attorney General Gupta graduated magna cum laude from Yale University and received her law degree from New York University School of Law, where later she taught a civil rights litigation clinic for several years. ⬛️ ⬛️ ⬛️ SUBSCRIBE: Blue View Podcast ➡️ https://blue-view.castos.com/ Apple Podcasts ➡️ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/blue-view-by-the-fraternal-order-of-police-fop/id1609211746 Spotify ➡️ https://open.spotify.com/show/3OZzhTEcwf3e2y0sPqdsew Amazon ➡️ https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/aad56de4-4a9a-46d2-a71f-ba46ea487797/blue-view-by-the-fraternal-order-of-police-fop

Beveridge & Diamond Principal John Cruden (Washington, DC), who formerly served as Assistant Attorney General of DOJ's Environment & Natural Resources Division (2015-2017), speaks with renowned environmental justice (EJ) leader and advocate Benjamin F. Wilson. Ben, who recently retired after serving years as Chairman of Beveridge & Diamond, has deep experience with EJ representations and is a recognized leader on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues in the legal profession. In December, The American Lawyer presented Ben with its Lifetime Achievement Award, and Lawyers of Color listed Ben among the “Most Influential Black Lawyer of the Decade.” Ben manages the Diverse Lawyers Network, teaches at the Howard University School of Law, and is an active member on many boards, including serving as Chair for the Environmental Law Institute. “Groundtruth” is a podcast series, produced in partnership with the Environmental Law Institute's People Places Planet Podcast, that explores EJ trends and developments. Beveridge & Diamond Associate Hilary Jacobs (Washington, DC) led the content development for this episode.

On last week's #2A & the Great Outdoors Show, Bo & Marc spoke with Scott Isringhausen from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Division about the latest in Bald Eagle watching.

Welcome to 2nd Amendment Radio and the Great Outdoors with Bo Matthews and Marc Cox – as always produced by Carl Middleman (Pew Pew)! This week, the boys talk to Scott Isringhausen from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Division about the latest in Bald Eagle watching. And Bo's Big Dawg Poker bash is set for March 27th. More information here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/6th-annual-big-dawgs-poker-bash-tickets-241399130297 

The U.S. Department of Justice's Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENRD) is tasked with enforcing the United States' civil and criminal environmental laws. In this episode, Nicole Noelliste, a managing associate in the environmental practice at Sidley Austin LLP, talks with John Cruden, former Assistant Attorney General of the ENRD (2015-2017), and David Buente, former Chief of the ENRD's Environmental Enforcement Section (1985-1990). John and David share insights on the organizational development of the Environmental Crimes Section and Environmental Enforcement Section of ENRD and discuss key landmark cases such as Love Canal. The episode is part of The Enforcement Angle series, featuring conversations about state and federal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations with senior enforcement officials and thought leaders on environmental enforcement in the United States and globally.★ Support this podcast ★

St Helena's Agriculture & Natural Resources Division (ARND) are producing Podcasts to increase the general awareness of Farming & Local produce providing tips and services available to the public from the Division. In this edition Jonathon ' Joe' Hollins, the divisions Senior Vet, discusses the veterinary services available on the Island.

Mauricia Baca returned to The Nature Conservancy in Nevada as State Director in November 2020 after previously serving as the chapter's Truckee River Project Director and Southern Nevada Project Director from 2005-2009. Since 2010, she served as the Executive Director of Get Outdoors Nevada, formerly known as the Outside Las Vegas Foundation. Baca also serves as Chair of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council, and as a member on the Transportation Resource Advisory Committee for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, and the City of Henderson's Park and Recreation Board. In June 2020, she was appointed to serve as a member of the State of Nevada's Advisory Board on Outdoor Recreation. Prior to coming to Nevada, Baca served as a trial attorney in the United States Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division for four years. While in law school, she interned for groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund. She has worked as a community organizer advocating for mass transit with the New York Public Interest Research Group, and she served a Peace Corps Volunteer in Cameroon after graduating from Vassar College.

This week, we talk about Arkansas Soybean Month and the 50th anniversary of the soybean checkoff program in Arkansas. We also get to know Chris Colclasure, recently appointed director of the Dept. of Agriculture's Natural Resources Division, and we hear about Arkansas Farm Bureau's annual resolutions meeting, an important part of the organization's grassroots policy development process.

Today Paul and Andrew interview David Kohler of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife, to get you all the information you need about the OHLAP program.  David covers the benefits to the land owners as well as the hunters.  This program is designed to help hunters get access to hunt, and give the land owners a little incentive to share their natural resources with the public.  This is an AWESOME explanation of the program! Ohio Outdoors is Powered by Simplecast

Today Paul and Andrew interview David Kohler of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife, to get you all the information you need about the OHLAP program.  David covers the benefits to the land owners as well as the hunters.  This program is designed to help hunters get access to hunt, and give the land owners a little incentive to share their natural resources with the public.  This is an AWESOME explanation of the program! Ohio Outdoors is Powered by Simplecast

Genetic Engineering and Society Center GES Colloquium - Tuesdays 12-1PM (via Zoom) NC State University | http://go.ncsu.edu/ges-colloquium GES Mediasite - See videos, full abstracts, speaker bios, and slides https://go.ncsu.edu/ges-mediasite Twitter - https://twitter.com/GESCenterNCSU NGO perspective on governance of gene editing Dr. Doria Gordon, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, and Gregory Jaffe, JD, Director of the Project on Biotechnology at Center for Science in the Public Interest www.edf.org/people/doria-gordon | cspinet.org/biography/gregory-jaffe and @JaffeGregory This talk will describe six principles for the proper governance of gene editing, addressing issues such as transparency, stakeholder engagement, government oversight, and voluntary stewardship, that were adopted by six US non-governmental organizations. Abstract Biotechnology, which includes gene editing and other technologies, has the potential to address urgent food security, environmental, and human health dilemmas. However, these technologies also raise potential for societal concerns, environmental and health risks, and conflicts with cultural and spiritual values. Previous experience with the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the food system have in some instances resulted in public mistrust, underscoring the need for more transparency, better governance, and oversight of these technologies when they are deployed. To address these potential concerns, representatives of six conservation and consumer non-governmental organizations developed six principles for responsible governance of gene editing in agriculture and the environment, which were published in an August 2021 article of Nature Biotechnology. This webinar will present the principles and invite questions and discussion on both the principles and possible next steps for implementation. Related links: https://www.keystone.org/our-work/emerging-genetic-technologies/ngoroundtable/ Speaker Bios Dr. Doria Gordon is a Lead Senior Scientist in the Office of the Chief Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, with a focus on ecosystems. Prior to EDF, she spent 25 years working in science, conservation, and management for The Nature Conservancy in Florida. Dr. Gordon is also a Courtesy Professor of Biology at the University of Florida and a Research Associate at Archbold Biological Station. Her current research focuses on the scale and measurement of net carbon sequestration in natural and agricultural systems. She also works on governance of genetically engineered organisms in agriculture and the environment, and risk assessment for invasiveness in plant species. Dr. Gordon completed a M.S. and Ph.D. in Ecology at the University of California at Davis following an undergraduate degree in Biology and Environmental Studies at Oberlin College. Gregory Jaffe is the Director of the Project on Biotechnology for CSPI. Jaffe came to CSPI after serving as a Trial Attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice's Environmental and Natural Resources Division and as Senior Counsel with the U.S. EPA, Air Enforcement Division. He is a recognized international expert on agricultural biotechnology and biosafety and works on biosafety regulatory issues in the U.S. and throughout the world. He was a member of the Secretary of Agriculture's Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture from 2003-2008 and was reappointed to a new term in 2011. He was also a member of FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee from 2004-2008. In addition, he provides biosafety expertise to the International Food Policy Research Institute and Cornell University's Alliance for Science. Jaffe earned his BA with High Honors from Wesleyan University in Biology and Government and then received a law degree from Harvard Law School. GES Center - Integrating scientific knowledge & diverse public values in shaping the futures of biotechnology. Find out more at https://ges-center-lectures-ncsu.pinecast.co

As the 2020 term concluded, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Muskogee Creek Reservation in Oklahoma was never disestablished by Congress. This has led to Oklahoma Courts declaring that reservations for the Chickasaw, Cherokee, Choctaw and Seminole Nation reservations continue to exist as well, creating unanswered questions about state and tribal authority in much of the eastern half of the state.The Webinar will explore some of the litigation that has arisen after the ruling in McGirt, discussions between the state and the nations, and Congressional discussions that have occurred in the past year. Featuring:-- Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig -- Ryan Leonard, Special Counsel for Native American Affairs to Gov. Stitt-- Moderator: Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice

On this episode we are joined by Scott Hale - Executive Administrator of Fish Management and Research for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources / Division of Wildlife. We talk with Scott about his role, about their research, stocking, conservation, invasive species, and much more!  The Tackle Talk - Bass Fishing Podcast is brought to you by Top Fishing Deals. Stop overpaying for your fishing gear! Check www.topfishingdeals.com to save money on your favorite gear!Follow us on Facebook and Instagram @tackletalkpodcast! Tackle Talk - Bass Fishing Podcast is produced by Andrew Hayes. Copyright: 2021

Three bears wandering around Fredericton this week met an unfortunate end.  Kristian Moore is executive director of the Natural Resources Division of the Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development.

Listen to John Cruden, a decorated Marine who went on to serve at the highest levels of the United States Department of Justice, give us his take on What's America's Purpose. From his stories of protecting the health of Americans from illegal pollution to his leadership in the development of American laws for sustainable development that serve as an example for the world, John Cruden's decades of work serves as a benchmark for excellence. Not only that, but John also gives us fascinating stories about his various adventures along the way, adventures like meetings with notables like the actor Jimmy Stewart and Presidents Reagan and Obama.  Enjoy!  Read about the Environmental Law Institute Read about the United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division  Read about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Case

Environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act allow private plaintiffs and environmental advocacy groups to file citizen suits alongside the government's environmental enforcement actions against polluters. The Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice is now pushing to end the practice in a federal case involving DTE Energy, Michigan's largest electrical utility and a major operator of natural gas pipelines. The Sierra Club intervened on the government's side and is seeking court approval of a side agreement in which DTE would close three coal plants, in addition to the penalties and mitigation secured by the Justice Department.Such Supplemental Environmental Projects (or SEPs) are supposed to supplement the government's enforcement actions. But critics - and now DOJ - argue that SEPs often supplant the penalty that the government has sought in its enforcement action. Such provisions, critics say, amount to a delegation of a core executive function that the Constitution vests in the president. It allows private advocacy groups to override the government's enforcement priorities with their own, and then profit from coercive use of penalties that arise under environmental protection laws, the faithful execution of which is entrusted to the president and to the officials under his control. Critics say that any citizen suit claims arising under federal environmental laws that also give rise to enforcement actions should be extinguished when the enforcement action is resolved.To the extent advocacy groups induce private companies to agree to such SEPs by promising to give up on claims arising under federal environmental laws subject to federal enforcement, should the practice of SEPs be viewed as an unconstitutional infringement on a core executive function? Should the government's ability to extinguish such private claims be viewed as a taking?Featuring:- Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Eric Groten, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP- Joel Mintz, Professor Emeritus of Law and C. William Trout Senior Fellow in Public Interest Law, Shepard Broad College of Law, Nova Southeastern University- [Moderator] Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise InstituteVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act allow private plaintiffs and environmental advocacy groups to file citizen suits alongside the government's environmental enforcement actions against polluters. The Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice is now pushing to end the practice in a federal case involving DTE Energy, Michigan's largest electrical utility and a major operator of natural gas pipelines. The Sierra Club intervened on the government's side and is seeking court approval of a side agreement in which DTE would close three coal plants, in addition to the penalties and mitigation secured by the Justice Department.Such Supplemental Environmental Projects (or SEPs) are supposed to supplement the government's enforcement actions. But critics - and now DOJ - argue that SEPs often supplant the penalty that the government has sought in its enforcement action. Such provisions, critics say, amount to a delegation of a core executive function that the Constitution vests in the president. It allows private advocacy groups to override the government's enforcement priorities with their own, and then profit from coercive use of penalties that arise under environmental protection laws, the faithful execution of which is entrusted to the president and to the officials under his control. Critics say that any citizen suit claims arising under federal environmental laws that also give rise to enforcement actions should be extinguished when the enforcement action is resolved.To the extent advocacy groups induce private companies to agree to such SEPs by promising to give up on claims arising under federal environmental laws subject to federal enforcement, should the practice of SEPs be viewed as an unconstitutional infringement on a core executive function? Should the government's ability to extinguish such private claims be viewed as a taking?Featuring:- Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Eric Groten, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP- Joel Mintz, Professor Emeritus of Law and C. William Trout Senior Fellow in Public Interest Law, Shepard Broad College of Law, Nova Southeastern University- [Moderator] Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise InstituteVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice recently announced a policy that the Division would no longer agree to Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in settlement agreements or judicial consent decrees resolving violations of environmental laws. As defined by EPA, a SEP is an environmentally beneficial project or activity that is not required by law, but that a defendant agrees to undertake as part of the settlement of an enforcement action. Under EPA’s SEPs policy, the agency (through the Division) will seek a lesser civil monetary penalty in settling a civil enforcement action than what it would otherwise seek in the settlement in exchange for a defendant’s voluntary commitment to perform a SEP. Because SEPs purposefully trade civil monetary penalties payable to the U.S. Treasury for projects selected or approved by EPA that Congress either has not approved or had no occasion to consider, do SEPs violate the Miscellaneous Receipts Act and other laws intended to preserve Congress’ constitutional power of the purse?Featuring:- Jeffrey Clark, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), Department of JusticeVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice recently announced a policy that the Division would no longer agree to Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in settlement agreements or judicial consent decrees resolving violations of environmental laws. As defined by EPA, a SEP is an environmentally beneficial project or activity that is not required by law, but that a defendant agrees to undertake as part of the settlement of an enforcement action. Under EPA’s SEPs policy, the agency (through the Division) will seek a lesser civil monetary penalty in settling a civil enforcement action than what it would otherwise seek in the settlement in exchange for a defendant’s voluntary commitment to perform a SEP. Because SEPs purposefully trade civil monetary penalties payable to the U.S. Treasury for projects selected or approved by EPA that Congress either has not approved or had no occasion to consider, do SEPs violate the Miscellaneous Receipts Act and other laws intended to preserve Congress’ constitutional power of the purse?Featuring:- Jeffrey Clark, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), Department of JusticeVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On February 24, 2020 the Supreme Court will hear argument in two consolidated cases, U.S. Forest Service v. Cow Pasture River Assn. and Atlantic Coast Pipeline Assn. v. Cow Pasture River Assn., in which the Fourth Circuit invalidated the permit for construction of a multi-billion-dollar natural gas pipeline that crosses the Appalachian Trail on Forest Service land in Virginia. The issue is which, if any, federal agency can authorize construction that impacts the Trail, which crosses private, state and federal land from Georgia to Maine and operates under a host of statutes, regulations and private agreements. The case is a textbook study in legislative interpretation, congressional intent and private-public cooperative agreements. Our presenters are two of the lawyers who filed amicus briefs for parties directly impacted by the case. Keith Bradley, counsel for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, is a partner with the Squire Patton Boggs firm in Denver and former counsel with the Department of Energy, where he was lead lawyer on implementation of the Iran nuclear deal. Tom Jensen is a partner with Perkins, Coie in Washington, D.C. He formerly served as the majority counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and was the associate director for natural resources on the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Roger Marzulla, partner at Marzulla Law in Washington, D.C. and former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, will moderate.Featuring: -- Keith Bradley, Partner, Squire Patton Boggs (Denver)-- Thomas C. Jensen, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP-- Moderator: Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law, LLC

On February 24, 2020 the Supreme Court will hear argument in two consolidated cases, U.S. Forest Service v. Cow Pasture River Assn. and Atlantic Coast Pipeline Assn. v. Cow Pasture River Assn., in which the Fourth Circuit invalidated the permit for construction of a multi-billion-dollar natural gas pipeline that crosses the Appalachian Trail on Forest Service land in Virginia. The issue is which, if any, federal agency can authorize construction that impacts the Trail, which crosses private, state and federal land from Georgia to Maine and operates under a host of statutes, regulations and private agreements. The case is a textbook study in legislative interpretation, congressional intent and private-public cooperative agreements. Our presenters are two of the lawyers who filed amicus briefs for parties directly impacted by the case. Keith Bradley, counsel for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, is a partner with the Squire Patton Boggs firm in Denver and former counsel with the Department of Energy, where he was lead lawyer on implementation of the Iran nuclear deal. Tom Jensen is a partner with Perkins, Coie in Washington, D.C. He formerly served as the majority counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and was the associate director for natural resources on the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Roger Marzulla, partner at Marzulla Law in Washington, D.C. and former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, will moderate.Featuring: -- Keith Bradley, Partner, Squire Patton Boggs (Denver)-- Thomas C. Jensen, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP-- Moderator: Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law, LLC

In Part 2 of an Island Conversations with Sherry Bracken, Hawaii County Prosecutor Mitch Roth tells us more about the ethics complaint filed against him after he, Prosecutor Roth, testified about what he perceived as wrongdoing by a State Department of Land and Natural Resources/Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation employee; we talk about what Prosecutor Roth is thinking about for the 2020 election (spoiler alert--he is thinking about running for higher office); we talk about initiatives to keep people out of the justice system and on a good path...and more. Air date:  May 5, 2019

It's a mouthful, but we're joined by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources - Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology to discuss their upcoming "Women at Work" Conference and then we'll welcome Scribfolio, a product to help foster creativity and exploration in Indy kids. All that and more, today on the EDGE! --  Jeanie Reagan-Dinius, the Director of Special Initiatives at Indiana DNR, joins Erin and Brittany to talk about their upcoming Women at Work Conference. This is the third year for the event and the event will be held at the Harrison Center for the Arts. This year's conference will focus on the history of Indiana women in the arts and their keynote speaker for this year will be Abbey Chambers. If you are interested in attending this year's conference, please visit: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/hoosier-women-at-work-2018-tickets-39052707700 -- Have you heard about the data breach at Facebook? Well, Fitbit has released their own stats of their user's sleep habits. Plus, would you want a robot of your dead relatives? Find out these stories and more, this week on the Paul Poteet on the EDGE! Company wants to build an AI robot version of your dead relatives - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5428169/Scientists-want-build-robot-replicas-dead-relatives.html FitBit studied 6 billion nights of sleep - https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/fitbit-analyzed-data-on-6-billion-nights-of-sleep-with-fascinating-results-66742aa49450 What new for weddings this year? - https://www.theknot.com/content/2018-wedding-trends -- If you are looking to pull your kids away from spending all the time in front of the screen, then be sure to check out Scribfolio! Maggie Held is the founder of Scribfolio and she joins Erin and Brittany to talk about how she turned her career from a professional singer/dancer/actor into a small business owner. To learn more about Scribfolio, please visit their website: https://www.scribfolio.com/

On our season finale, host Carmen Devito visits Zone 1 of the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map, which includes Alaska, and also revisits Zone 13, which includes Puerto Rico. First, we hear from Peter Johnson and Rusty Foreaker, agronomists with Alaska's Department of Natural Resources Division of Agriculture. After the break, we're joined by Dr. Grizelle González, Project Leader of the Research and Development Unit at the International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico. We Dig Plants is powered by Simplecast

We revisit producer Gary Harrison's documentary "Over, Under, Gone" (which premiered fall 2016). "There's a killer in our streams and rivers. It hides within the falling waters on the downstream side of a dam. Thousands of these "low head" dams are scattered across our country, and while the name implies low hazard/low impact, nothing could be further from the truth." Guests are Manuela Johnson, CEM, Administrator State Disaster Relief Fund, Indiana Department of Homeland Security; Kenneth Smith, with Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Water; and Lt. Col. Terry Hyndman, Indiana Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Division. All are members of the Indiana Silver Jackets Low Head Dams Initiative Team.

“There’s nothing holding you back except what’s in your mind” Sometimes you speak with someone that has so much positive energy that it’s bound to rub off on you. Despite a massive headache during this conversation, I came away feeling energized after speaking with Sara-Jane Smallwood. Sara-Jane is one of those people that had a clear goal from a young age and pursued that goal and was able to realize that goal: returning home to work for her tribe. She did so in a big way, working on a very high-profile program that eventually resulted in a visit from President Obama to Choctaw Nation. Official Bio Sara-Jane Smallwood is the Director of Public Policy and Promise Zone Coordinator for the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Her Choctaw heritage and passion for public policy are intertwined. She comes from a long line of farmers and ranchers who make their living from the land, and she grew up near Sardis Lake and the Choctaw Capitol in Tvshka Homma. These experiences taught her the importance of the Choctaw Nation’s culture, natural resources, and leadership. Sara-Jane is currently a student at Oklahoma State University pursuing a PhD in Environmental Policy. She received her Master of Public Affairs with emphasis in local governance and environmental policy from Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs in 2012. She received a Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Communications and American Indian Studies at Oklahoma State University in 2008, and was named an Outstanding Senior as one of the university’s top graduates. In 2007, she was chosen as a Scholar by the Morris K. Udall and the Stewart L. Udall Foundation and as a Fellow by the Public Policy and International Affairs Program, where she was part of the Princeton University summer fellowship. Sara-Jane was previously employed by the U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division. Sara-Jane serves as an Oklahoma Champion for Early Opportunities with the Potts Family Foundation, board member of the Oklahoma Academy for State Goals, and serves on the Board of Trustees for the Eastern Oklahoma State College Foundation. In her free time, SJ can be spotted cruising southeastern Oklahoma in her cobalt blue Mini Cooper.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General John Cruden heads the U.S. Department of Justice Energy and Natural Resources Division, making him the top environmental lawyer at the U.S. DOJ. Cruden served as Chair of the ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources from 2009-2010. Having spent a great deal of time in courtrooms and speaking before large groups, he shares with our Leadership Development Program class his tips on projecting a presence. Sponsored by the ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources. Online at http://www.americanbar.org/environ