#Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A group of House Democrats is pushing a legislative proposal that would establish an investigative body within the U.S. Supreme Court to probe potential ethical improprieties in the wake of another Court-related controversy.

On Tuesday, New York Democratic Reps. Dan Goldman and Jerry Nadler and other lawmakers introduced the “Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act,” which among other things would create an investigative body that reports to Congress and establish an ethics counsel to advise justices on ethics rules, including recusal and disclosure requirements.

Lawmakers say the goal is to provide transparency and accountability after recent incidents raised ethical concerns about some members of the Court.

The group cites the incident involving Justice Samuel Alito as an example. Alito faced calls to recuse himself from Jan. 6 and 2020 election-related cases after the New York Times reported in May that his household flew an upside-down flag — a symbol associated with the “Stop the Steal” movement — in January of 2021; and flew another right-wing flag last year.

The incidents prompted Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) to send a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts requesting that he take steps to ensure that Alito recuses himself in any cases related to the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol “including the question of former President Trump’s immunity from prosecution …” The immunity case is pending before the Court after oral argument was held in April.

In his own letter, Alito responded by blaming his wife for the flags. He also said he would not recuse himself, citing the Court’s code of conduct adopted last year:

“B. DISQUALIFICATION. (1) A Justice is presumed impartial and has an obligation to sit unless disqualified. (2) A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” A reasonable person who isn’t motivated by “political or ideological considerations” would conclude that the incidents don’t warrant a recusal, Alito says in the letter.

But a number of lawmakers and Court observers seem to disagree.

“Ethics policies at the Supreme Court should be robust and consistent,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Fix the Court, “and the current hodgepodge … is far from a best practice.”

Past attempts, however, to bring stronger accountability to the nation’s highest court have been unsuccessful. Last year, ProPublica published an investigation detailing the perks and lavish gifts Justice Clarence Thomas received from Harlan Crow, a real estate tycoon and prominent GOP donor, that Thomas did not disclose. Legislation introduced that year that would require the Court to adopt a code of conduct and create a mechanism to investigate alleged code violations failed to gain traction.

In November, the Court established a code of conduct. But the onus seems to be on the justices to abide by the standards. Alito cited this code — the “Disqualification” section — in his decision not to recuse himself.

[ridenwithbiden]

A group of Democratic senators introduced a bill Thursday that would radically change the makeup of the Supreme Court, amid ongoing concerns over court ethics and its increasingly conservative makeup.

The legislation would appoint a new Supreme Court justice every two years, with that justice hearing every case for 18 years before stepping back from the bench and only hearing a “small number of constitutionally required cases.”

“The Supreme Court is facing a crisis of legitimacy that is exacerbated by radical decisions at odds with established legal precedent, ethical lapses of sitting justices, and politicization of the confirmation process,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said in a statement.

“This crisis has eroded faith and confidence in our nation’s highest court. Fundamental reform is necessary to address this crisis and restore trust in the institution.”

Only the nine most recently appointed justices would hear appellate cases, which make up a bulk of the court’s work. All living justices would participate in a smaller subset of cases under the court’s “original jurisdiction,” such as disputes between states or with foreign officials.

The bill was introduced by Sens. Booker, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and it was co-sponsored by Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).

Calls for Supreme Court reform grew louder this year after ProPublica revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of perks from conservative political donors. Further investigations have uncovered multiple significant and undisclosed gifts from politically connected friends over his time as a federal judge.

Justice Samuel Alito also took a luxury vacation paid for by an influential conservative donor while in the judiciary, another investigation found earlier this year.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill earlier this year along party lines that would require the Supreme Court to create and abide by a code of ethics. Unlike lower courts, Supreme Court judges are not beholden to an official ethics code.

“An organized scheme by right-wing special interests to capture and control the Supreme Court, aided by gobs of billionaire dark money flowing through the confirmation process and judicial lobbying, has resulted in an unaccountable Court out of step with the American people,” Whitehouse said in a statement.

“Term limits and biennial appointments would make the Court more representative of the public and lower the stakes of each justice’s appointment, while preserving constitutional protections for judicial independence.

“As Congress considers multiple options to restore the integrity of this scandal-plagued Court, our term limits bill should be front and center as a potential solution,” he added.

Attempts to reform the Supreme Court have been denounced by both Republicans in Congress and by some members of the court, namely Thomas and Alito.

Alito argued earlier this year that Congress does not have the authority to force any reform on the court without a constitutional amendment.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told The Wall Street Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

But Whitehouse’s office argued in Wednesday’s statement that the Constitution allows Congress to regulate how the court handles appellate cases from lower courts. That’s why all justices would still weigh in on “original jurisdiction” cases, avoiding the constitutional hang-up.

Trust in the Supreme Court remains near all-time lows, according to national opinion polling. A Gallup poll last month found that just 41 percent of Americans approve of how the Supreme Court is doing its job, with 58 percent disapproving.

[wilwheaton]

“We have a very problematic system in which we have a court that can assert these incredible powers that affect all of our lives and they’re not of momentary import, but they can affect generations,” she said. “It’s a very radical approach to governing, to have a court that can act like a monarchy. It does destabilize our democracy quite a bit.” Even before the most controversial decisions, the Supreme Court faced intense scrutiny in recent weeks after revelations by ProPublica that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito had accepted luxury trips from prominent Republican donors over the years. Neither justice disclosed the trips, saying they were advised they did not need to. But Democrats, who have been infuriated by the lax rules for the Supreme Court, have vowed to try to tighten ethics rules for the justices, vowing to push legislation if the justices do not adopt an ethics code on their own. “The highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards. But for too long that has been the case with the United States Supreme Court. That needs to change,” Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a joint statement with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who chairs a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the federal judiciary.

Biden faces renewed pressure to embrace Supreme Court overhaul

Every one of the Trump appointees committed perjury during their confirmation hearings. Every member of the stolen majority is a politician, cosplaying as a Justice, making law outside of Congress.

They must all be removed and replaced.

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

☝️😡

“What was eye-catching was her explanation of why. In her ruling, Mizelle wrote she had consulted the Corpus of Historical American English, an academic search engine that returns examples of how words and phrases are used in select historical texts. Mizelle searched “sanitation,” a crucial word in the 1944 statute that authorizes the CDC to issue disease-prevention rules, and found it generally was used to describe the act of making something clean. “Wearing a mask,” she wrote, “cleans nothing.”

Searching large linguistic databases is a relatively new approach to judicial analysis called legal corpus linguistics. Although it has gained in popularity over the last decade, it is barely discussed outside of an enthusiastic group of right-wing conservative legal scholars. Which raises the question: How did this niche concept wind up driving such a consequential decision in the country’s health policy?

Now, new disclosures seen by HuffPost shed some light. Just weeks before she issued the ruling, Mizelle had discreetly attended an all-expenses-paid luxury trip from a conservative group whose primary mission is to persuade more federal judges to adopt the use of corpus linguistics. For five days, Mizelle and more than a dozen other federal judges listened to the leading proponents of corpus linguistics in the comfort of The Greenbrier, an ostentatious resort spread out over 11,000 acres of West Virginia hillside.

The newly formed group that picked up the tab, the Judicial Education Institute, received more than $1 million in startup funding from the billionaire libertarian Charles Koch’s network and DonorsTrust, a nonprofit that has funneled millions in anonymous donations to right-wing causes and has been dubbed “the dark money ATM of the conservative movement.”

Trump appointed Mizelle to the federal bench in late 2020 over objections from the American Bar Association that she had not been practicing law long enough to be qualified. A search of her other rulings found she had never previously applied corpus linguistics.

Neither Mizelle nor the Judicial Education Institute responded to requests for comment.

In response to the new disclosure, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who chairs the subcommittee on federal courts and oversight, called for more disclosure surrounding when judges attend ideological educational retreats.

“The multi-pronged billionaire-funded scheme to influence the judiciary includes flying amenable judges to luxury resorts to bathe them in the latest fantastical right-wing legal theories,” he said in a statement to HuffPost. “At the very least, the public ought to know when judges are attending lavish ‘seminars’ promoting the agenda of partisan special interests. The Judicial Conference should take a close look at tightening its rules to ensure transparency around such junkets.”

[kp777]

By Jake Johnson

Common Dreams

Jan. 6, 2024

"Billionaires attempting to influence politics from the shadows should not be rewarded with taxpayer subsidies," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

Legislation introduced Tuesday by a pair of Democratic lawmakers would close a loophole that lets billionaires donate assets to dark money organizations without paying any taxes.

The U.S. tax code allows write-offs when appreciated assets such as shares of stock are donated to a charity, but the tax break doesn't apply when the assets are given to political groups.

However, donations to 501(c)(4) organizations—which are allowed to engage in some political activity as long as it's not their primary purpose—are exempt from capital gains taxes, a loophole that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) are looking to shutter with their End Tax Breaks for Dark Money Act.

Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has focused extensively on the corrupting effects of dark money, said the need for the bill was made clear by what ProPublica and The Lever described as "the largest known donation to a political advocacy group in U.S. history."

The investigative outlets reported in 2022 that billionaire manufacturing magnate Barre Seid donated his 100% ownership stake in Tripp Lite, a maker of electrical equipment, to Marble Freedom Trust, a group controlled by Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo.

The donation, completed in 2021, was worth $1.6 billion. According to ProPublica and The Lever, the structure of the gift allowed Seid to avoid up to $400 million in taxes.

"It's a clear sign of a broken tax code when a single donor can transfer assets worth $1.6 billion to a dark money political group without paying a penny in taxes," Whitehouse said in a statement Tuesday. "Billionaires attempting to influence politics from the shadows should not be rewarded with taxpayer subsidies."

"We cannot allow millionaires and billionaires to run roughshod over our democracy and then reward them for it with a tax break."

If passed, the End Tax Breaks for Dark Money Act would ensure that donations of appreciated assets to 501(c)(4) organizations are subjected to the same rules as gifts to political action committees (PACs) and parties.

"Thanks to the far-right Supreme Court, billionaires already have outsized influence to decide our nation's politics; through a loophole in the tax code, they can even secure massive public subsidies for lobbying and campaigning when they secretly donate their wealth to certain nonprofits instead of traditional political organizations," said Chu. "We can decrease the impact the wealthy have on our politics by applying capital gains taxes to donations of appreciated property to nonprofits that engage in lobbying and political activity—the same way they are already treated when made to traditional political organizations like PACs."

The new bill comes amid an election season that is already flooded with outside spending.

The watchdog OpenSecrets reported last month that super PACs and other groups "have already poured nearly $318 million into spending on presidential and congressional races as of January 14—more than six times as much as had been spent at this point in 2020."

Thanks to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums on federal elections—often without being fully transparent about their donors.

Morris Pearl, chairman of the Patriotic Millionaires, said Tuesday that "there is no justifiable reason why wealthy people like me should be allowed to dominate our political system by donating an entire $1.6 billion company to a dark money political group."

"But perhaps more egregious is the $400 million tax break that comes from doing so," said Pearl. "It's a perfect example of how this provision in the tax code is used by the ultrawealthy to manipulate the levers of government while simultaneously dodging their obligation to pay taxes. We cannot allow millionaires and billionaires to run roughshod over our democracy and then reward them for it with a tax break."

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin is failing at his job of holding the Supreme Court accountable. While he continues issuing stern statements and making floor speeches about Justice Samuel Alito’s recent flag scandals, he isn’t actually doing anything about it. Now other Democrats—like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland—are stepping up to fill the leadership void. Alito already blew off Durbin and Whitehouse’s demands that he recuse himself from insurrection-related cases, despite his display of Stop the Steal flags. Whitehouse followed up with a letter Monday, inquiring about a tax case from which he pressed Alito to recuse himself. 

Before the hearing for that case, Alito was interviewed for The Wall Street Journal by one of the lawyers, David Rivkin Jr. In the article, Alito declared that both he and the Supreme Court are above the law. Whitehouse wrote that it “appears that you offered an improper opinion regarding a question that might come before the Court; did so in the context of a known ongoing legal dispute involving that precise question; did so at the behest of an interviewer who as a lawyer represented a client in that ongoing dispute; and did so to the benefit of his client, your personal friend, and to the benefit of yourself, as a recipient of undisclosed gifts that are the subject of our investigation.” “I note that the Supreme Court is the only place in all of government where issues of this nature have no place or means of investigation or resolution,” he continued. “So far, my questions regarding these events seem to have disappeared into a black hole of indifference.” This letter is likely to fall into the same black hole, but it does help build the case against Alito and the rampant corruption he and fellow Justice Clarence Thomas have brought to the court. 

So disappointed in Sen. Durbin’s inaction on the SCOTUS corruption crisis. #DoBetterDurbin

[maturemenoftvandfilms]

My Top 10 US Senators (2023)

This post is for 'My Top 10 US Senators' I'd like to fuck and is purely based on appearance, not politics. If you don't agree, either scroll onwards, post your own idea or try another blog.

#10. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)

An American lawyer and politician serving as the senior United States senator from Rhode Island. Cute little guy whose diminutive height 5 feet 7 inches on a good day, makes him a perfect pocket daddy.

#9. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)

A former American football coach, former player, and Republican politician. He’s what you think a senator would look like. I’d love to fuck around in bed with him for a weekend.

#8. Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI)

An American politician and businessman serving as the junior United States Senator from Michigan since 2015. A bearded, buttoned-down genial Midwesterner known in the Senate mostly for steering as far clear from the spotlight as he possibly can. One ally calls him a “worker bee,” while a Republican describes him as “about as exciting as a bowl of cold oatmeal.” I’d call him hot as hell.

#7. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) 

An American politician serving as the senior United States senator from West Virginia, a seat he has held since 2010. Another politician who has a lot of political hate, but I fuck him. And if I’m the only one who wants to ride him till he busts. So be it. If Virginia is for lovers, I say West Virginia is for fuckers.

#6. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)

An American lawyer and politician serving as the junior United States senator from Virginia since 2013. Just by the look in his eyes makes me think Tim could be a hell of a good fuck. Nothing to base that on.

#5. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

An American politician serving as the senior United States senator from South Carolina, a seat he has held since 2003. Of course I’ve got my senate bottom bitch, Sen. Graham here. I kinda understand all the political hate, but I think he’s a mature southern gentleman from my state and I’d love to beat his ass like he stole something from me. And when I’m done with him, I’ll send him over to the next guy as I know I’m not the only one who’d fuck him.

#4. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD)  

An American businessman and politician serving as the junior United States Senator from South Dakota since 2015. I need to give Sen. Rounds, who I affectionally call “Mike Pounds” some more love. Because he could get “The Dick,” some ass or what ever he wants from me.

#3. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MI)

An American lawyer and politician serving as the junior United States senator from Missouri since 2023. The newest senator is tall at At 6’6”, handsome and wears boots. That's enough for me to want more of him.

#2. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

An American politician and attorney serving as the junior United States Senator for Texas since 2013. Honestly, Ted's here and this high only to piss off liberal, super political fuckers who can't separate looks from politics. Now that doesn't mean I don't want him naked in my bed with my jizz all over his face.

#1. Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT)

An American politician serving as the senior United States Senator from Montana, in office since 2007. If you didn’t know that Jon would be my #1, you must be a new follower.

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse Sen. Rand Paul Sen. Ron Johnson

[whosurisold]

America now has the most corrupt SCOTUS in the history of America

[progressivepower]

Senate Democrats Want To Subpoena Harlan Crow Over Ties To Clarence Thomas. Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) plan to compel additional GOP benefactors as they step up their ethics probe into the Supreme Court. http://ow.ly/xCK8104ZFAs

[hezigler]

Watch "Sen. Whitehouse on What the Captured Supreme Court Could Unleash in WV v. EPA" on YouTube

West Virginia is suing the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of coal companies. This is not a court that's at all sympathetic with liberal & or progressive causes.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

House Democrats launch probe of Trump’s dinner with oil executives | The Washington Post

House Democrats are launching an investigation into Donald Trump’s meeting with oil executives last month at his Mar-a-Lago Club, where the former president asked the executives to steer $1 billion to his 2024 campaign and promised to reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental policies.

The probe comes after The Washington Post on Thursday first reported the fundraising dinner, where Trump said that giving $1 billion would be a “deal” because of the taxation and regulation the oil companies would avoid thanks to him, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.

In letters sent Monday evening, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee asked nine oil executives to provide detailed information on their companies’ participation in the meeting. The Democrats voiced concern that Trump’s request at the dinner may have been a quid pro quo and may have violated campaign finance laws, although experts say his conduct probably did not cross the threshold of being illegal.

Lawmakers sent the letters to the CEOs of Cheniere Energy, Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, Continental Resources, EQT Corporation, ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum and Venture Global. They also fired off a missive to the head of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s top lobbying arm in Washington.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, asked the executives to provide the names and titles of any company representatives who attended the Mar-a-Lago dinner, copies of any materials shared with the attendees, a description of any policy proposals discussed at the event, and a list of any contributions to the Trump campaign made during or after the event.

Raskin also asked the executives to provide a copy of any draft executive orders or policy paperwork that their companies have prepared for Trump or his campaign. Politico reported that oil industry lawyers and lobbyists have drawn up executive orders for Trump to sign in a possible second term, including directives aimed at boosting natural gas exports and offshore oil drilling.

Asked about the letter, Andrea Woods, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, said in an email that the group “meets with policymakers and candidates from across the political spectrum on topics important to our industry that range from strengthening energy security to addressing persistent U.S. inflation.”

A Venture Global spokeswoman said of the meeting with Trump: “Venture Global regularly engages with government officials — both past and present — on a bipartisan basis and this meeting was no different. We would welcome a similar conversation with President Biden at any time.”

A spokesman for Cheniere Energy declined to comment on the letter. Spokespeople for the other oil companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Democrats on the Oversight Committee lack certain investigative powers because Republicans control the House. If the oil companies decline to turn over the information, Democrats will not be able to subpoena the firms, stymying their investigation.

Yet Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a vocal climate advocate who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, which wields subpoena power, has voiced interest in launching his own probe.

Trump’s comments at the dinner are “practically an invitation to ask questions about Big Oil’s political corruption and manipulation,” Whitehouse said in an emailed statement.

“Fossil fuel malfeasance will cost Americans trillions in climate damages, and the Budget Committee is looking at how to ensure the industry cannot simply buy off politicians in order to saddle taxpayers with the bill,” he added.

At the Mar-a-Lago meeting, Trump promised to immediately end the Biden administration’s freeze on permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports in a second term, according to people who attended. He also pledged to start auctioning off more leases for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and to reverse restrictions on drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.

Experts said Trump’s remarks at the dinner probably didn’t violate campaign finance laws as currently interpreted by the Federal Election Commission and the Supreme Court. They said a violation would need to involve a clear quid pro quo in which Trump promised to take a specific policy action in exchange for a specific campaign contribution.

“This alone is probably not enough to indicate the existence of a quid pro quo,” said Dan Weiner, director of elections and government at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school.

Trump “was doing what candidates often do, which is saying, ‘Please give me money, and I will do the things that I know you want,’” Weiner added. “The brazenness is still quite astonishing, and it certainly flies in the face of the spirit of the law, if not the letter.”

Former Obama White House ethics adviser Norm Eisen, a Trump critic and prominent supporter of the four criminal cases against him, agreed.

“I’m not saying it’s a violation of the law,” said Eisen, who served as special counsel to the House’s first impeachment of Trump. “But it raises serious questions, and it’s a reminder of why we have those laws on the books.”

[sjerzgirl]

So much conflict of interest and he says they're untouchable??

[scottguy]

Good! You tell 'em Senator Sheldon.

We see (since Trump) how much of our system is based on simple choice norms, politicians doing the right thing because to not do what was right and expected was too politically dangerous.

Four years of constant scandal later and Fox viewers (and many others) not at all caring. That lead people like Jim Jordan and Supreme Court leader John Roberts to completely ignore their congressional supeonas to simply answer some questions.

So it's clear. We need actual criminal laws regarding these matters. There are no consequences for much unethical behavior. Those who make a mockery of ethical behavior can laugh at us for trying to hold them accountable.

The senate speaker also should not be allowed to use 'procedures' to deny a Supreme Court appointment or block other key legislation. (Like holding the debt ceiling hostage.) We should have protested in the streets over these things.

Mainstream media just acted like it was clever and thus okay for McConnell to refuse to uphold the Constitution!

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

👏

[kp777]

By Edward Carver

Common Dreams

May 22, 2024

Companies made "public promises to reduce emissions... while privately seeking to lock in continued fossil fuel production for decades into the future," wrote two Democratic leaders who referred the case.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Jamie Raskin formally called on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate the fossil fuel industry for propagating disinformation about climate change and obstructing a green transition on Wednesday, following the release of a report by their committees on April 30.

The report, based on a three-year investigation, found that the industry has deceived the public about climate change since at least the 1960s, with its strategy shifting over the decades from outright denial to disinformation and doublespeak. It was authored by the Senate Committee on the Budget, chaired by Whitehouse (D-R.I.) , and the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Democrats, led by Raskin (D-Md.).

Whitehouse's committee held a hearing on May 1 in which Raskin along with several scientists and legal experts spoke in remarkably clear terms about the industry's culpability, drawing parallels to Big Tobacco's past disinformation and lies about its products.

In the letter to Garland, the two lawmakers have taken the next step, calling for legal accountability for the wrongdoing they uncovered:

Our investigation revealed how [fossil fuel companies and lobby groups] worked in concert to mislead the public, policymakers, and investors with public promises to reduce emissions and meaningfully contribute to the transition away from oil and gas, while privately seeking to lock in continued fossil fuel production for decades into the future. The investigation also demonstrated that the fossil fuel industry continues to knowingly obfuscate the dangers of natural gas, which it has billed as a clean and green fuel.

Public interest groups called for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to heed the call from Whitehouse and Raskin, which they cited as an important step.

"This is the most substantive and consequential call yet for the Justice Department to take action against Big Oil companies for their ongoing and catastrophic campaign of lies," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement. "In a nation of laws, powerful corporations must not be allowed to lie to the public with impunity—especially when those lies cause great harm to public health and safety."

The attorneys general of at least eight states have already filed suits against Big Oil for deceiving the public about climate science and the industry's role in perpetuating climate change, and Michigan's attorney general recently announced that the state would also do so; many municipalities around the country have filed similar suits.

"As states and communities across the country are fighting in court to hold fossil fuel companies accountable, it's time for the nation's top law enforcement agency to stand up for the American people and bring this renegade industry to justice," Wiles said.

Similarly, David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Climate Program, called for the DOJ to take up the investigation as a way of "standing up to the powerful actors that are endangering communities nationwide."

The joint investigation revealed "shocking and undeniable wrongdoing" by the fossil fuel industry, Kathy Mulvey, accountability campaign director in the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement.

"There's now a mountain of evidence confirming the fossil fuel industry's ongoing efforts to defraud the public, manipulate our political system, delay the necessary transition to clean energy, and risk shareholder investments in the name of power and profits," Mulvey said. Referring to government cases against Big Tobacco and Big Pharma, Mulvey said that "similar action is warranted in the face of the fossil fuel industry-driven climate crisis," arguing that the industry must be required to "stop lying and correct past lies."

Despite the climate crisis, the industry is booming. In 2023, the combined profits of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP—four of the companies under investigation in the congressional probe—were over $100 billion. In the same year, the U.S. experienced the most disasters causing $1 billion or more in damage, Mulvey noted.

Whitehouse and Raskin also named one more reason that Garland should investigate fossil fuel companies: They obstructed the congressional investigation. None of the six entities under investigation—the four aforementioned companies, as well as the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—fully complied with the committees' work, despite congressional subpoenas, according to Whitehouse and Raskin. They flouted "long-standing congressional practices and norms for investigations," the letter to Garland states.

This lack of full disclosure has lead to questions about what wrongdoing has not yet come to light.

"Strong evidence already in the public domain suggests that Big Oil has likely violated a number of federal laws," Arkush of Public Citizen said. "And yet, as this letter makes clear, there is ample reason to think the industry is hiding even worse wrongdoing."