Justice Department sues the Justices

[Ernie]

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... stice-iii/

Humans will be humans.

[Ken]

From the article...

The complaint claims Jim Justice III-owned firms committed more than 130 violations of federal mining law between 2018 and 2022 and ignored more than 50 warnings from the government to halt operations until they had been resolved. The alleged violations also accrued $7.6 million in unpaid fees and interest, according to the filing.

[Josh]

From the article...

The complaint claims Jim Justice III-owned firms committed more than 130 violations of federal mining law between 2018 and 2022 and ignored more than 50 warnings from the government to halt operations until they had been resolved. The alleged violations also accrued $7.6 million in unpaid fees and interest, according to the filing.

You left out the part where Mr Justice is running for the Senate, which looks like political targeting.

[Ken]

From the article...

The complaint claims Jim Justice III-owned firms committed more than 130 violations of federal mining law between 2018 and 2022 and ignored more than 50 warnings from the government to halt operations until they had been resolved. The alleged violations also accrued $7.6 million in unpaid fees and interest, according to the filing.

You left out the part where Mr Justice is running for the Senate, which looks like political targeting.

He's already the governor. Instead of claiming persecution, maybe he should stop being corrupt instead. Just what we need, another billionaire trying to buy a Senate seat with ill-gotten gains.

Do you have the SLIGHEST bit of evidence that he is being held to a different and higher standard than other mine owners in West Virginia?

[Josh]

You're the one that decided to selectively quote the article.

[Ken]

You're the one that decided to selectively quote the article.

I left out the predictable baseless whining.

[Josh]

You're the one that decided to selectively quote the article.

I left out the predictable baseless whining.

In other words, you left out the part that didn't support your narrative?

In case you haven't noticed, trust in large government bureaucracies is at an all-time low, and accusations and evidence from whistleblowers in the IRS, Justice, FBI, and others have become quite frequent that these agencies are being used for political ends. An example like this just reinforces that.

[Ken]

You're the one that decided to selectively quote the article.

I left out the predictable baseless whining.

In other words, you left out the part that didn't support your narrative?

In case you haven't noticed, trust in large government bureaucracies is at an all-time low, and accusations and evidence from whistleblowers in the IRS, Justice, FBI, and others have become quite frequent that these agencies are being used for political ends. An example like this just reinforces that.

There is tremendous amounts of evidence in the indictment to support the notion that Justice's coal companies are serial lawbreakers.

What evidence do you have (or was presented in the article) that he is being politically targeted?

I'll wait.

[Josh]

There is tremendous amounts of evidence in the indictment to support the notion that Justice's coal companies are serial lawbreakers.

What evidence do you have (or was presented in the article) that he is being politically targeted?

I'll wait.

This is a classic misdirection tactic used with political prosecutions; the person may very well be guilty of some technical violation. The point is that if he were a reliable Democratic politician and donor (as he used to be until 2017), he wouldn't be being targeted. Now that he is a Republican, he's being targeted. That is the core problem here, Ken.

They could have brought these charges back before 2017.

[Ken]

There is tremendous amounts of evidence in the indictment to support the notion that Justice's coal companies are serial lawbreakers.

What evidence do you have (or was presented in the article) that he is being politically targeted?

I'll wait.

This is a classic misdirection tactic used with political prosecutions; the person may very well be guilty of some technical violation. The point is that if he were a reliable Democratic politician and donor (as he used to be until 2017), he wouldn't be being targeted. Now that he is a Republican, he's being targeted. That is the core problem here, Ken.

They could have brought these charges back before 2017.

So no, you have no evidence whatsoever that he is being targeted for political reasons. Got it.