God forbid that Congressmen find out how environmental-wackos pressuring the EPA could impact their OWN constituents!!!

Jake, please go back to trolling ThinkProgress.

The word "diabolical" springs to mind.

If the DoT employees who made the calls weren't "lobbying" against the California waiver, why did they call?

The DoT is apparently worried about California setting the bar too high on emissions standards, so that it is not "uniform [with the] regulatory scheme for fuel economy established by the National Highway Transit and Safety Administration." I guess it just wouldn't fair to those other states who can't keep up with California.

It has, of course, nothing to do with a deficiency in the national standards. And it's certainly nothing to do with pressure exerted from, say, the auto industry, which (boo-hoo) can't keep pace with those pesky foreign auto manufacturers. And definitely, no one from the oil industry bitched to Cheney about how this might cut into their business, so that Big Dick put the screws to the DoT.

It's almost elegant. No, the DoT's "activity simply does not implicate the anti-lobbying provisions." By using a few degrees of separation, the message (pressure) gets sent to the Congress without violating the letter of the law.

The Legislative Branch has to learn to think like the Executive Branch: diabolically. It'll probably make for even more-cumbersome legislation, but they need to think of every loophole the Executive could slither through.

It's like how you have to deal with mischievous kids: If you tell them not to "touch" the delicate glass gewgaw, you'd better include their clothing, shoes, hair, and implements in the instructions. Otherwise, like this administration, they'll find a way to do it anyway and tell you, "But you didn't say anything about blowing on it!"

There is no such thing as "confidentiality interests of the executive branch". There is "executive privilege", the extent of which, as you know, is debatable. There are confidentiality rules for federal agencies, but they apply to internal investigations of regulated entities and other work-product, not to the conduct of agency officials. Lobbying is not a work-product of an agency by any stretch of imagination. Any lawyer should be able to quash this line before virtually any judge.

Security Code: Springtime for Hitler

Posted by: buck turgidson
Date: July 5, 2007 3:04 PM

Exactly. The DOT was established by Congress to carry out tasks stipulated by Congress, in behalf of We the people. The Executive is to fulfill those obligations in its administration of the DOT. There are no legitimate secrets from the Congress, which funds DOT, on the part of DOT. Congress has probably already legislated against the "argument" being made by DOT, which is why DOT doesn't want to see the details of the "argument" behind the bald claim because they know they are violating the law.

The Bushit criminal enterprise is clearly about doing as much damage as possible to the regulatory system built over the last 60-plus years. All in behalf of those needing the regulation for the protection of the majority of US citizens from those lawless predators.

oartcdl baudp hkzwsprbn jplngav lscbnxw xqwc ojlcyu rxpbvfqw srpfx

Good site. Thank you:-)

Good site. Thank you!

Very good site. Thank you.

Nice site. Thank you!!!

Cool site. Thank you.

Very good site. Thank you!!!

Very good site. Thank you!!!

Nice site. Thank you!

Cool site. Thank you!

Nice site. Thank you.