Remember the fiasco that took place in Flint, Michigan?
Lead was in the water.
Apparently, the Environmental Protection Agency during the Obama era knew that officials “were not warning Flint residents” about the levels of lead.
All is good for Obama, though. As always, the MSM won’t care because he never did anything wrong – ever.
From Daily Caller:
A federal judge ruled Thursday that Flint citizens can move forward with lawsuits targeting the Environmental Protection Agency’s handling of the Michigan city’s lead contamination problems.
The EPA under former President Barack Obama was too slow to intervene in the case, according to U.S. Judge Linda Parker, who ruled that the federal government was not immune from legal action in the case. More than a dozen lawsuits were filed against Michigan and city officials after researchers discovered in 2016 that Flint’s water contained elevated levels of lead in 2014 and 2015.
“The impact on the health of the nearly 100,000 residents of the City of Flint remains untold,” Parker wrote in her opinion. “It is anticipated, however, that the injury caused by the lead-contaminated public water supply system will affect the residents for years and likely generations to come.”
The EPA knew Flint officials “were not warning Flint’s residents that they were being supplied lead-laced water. Quite to the contrary, the EPA learned that State and local officials were misleading residents to believe that there was nothing wrong with the water supply,” the judge added.
Fifteen state and local officials have been criminally indicted in connection with what many in the media have dubbed a water crisis. Four of the officials were charged with involuntary manslaughter. Much of the controversy happened after Flint switched its water source to the Flint River in 2014 without adding anti-corrosive agents to the water. Lead levels in drinking water supplies increased shortly thereafter.
The FBI wanted to charge Hillary Clinton with “gross negligence” in 2016.
The Department of Justice said, nope.
Remind me again…who was president in 2016?
From Washington Examiner:
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified last year that officials in the bureau, including then-FBI Director James Comey, discussed Espionage Act charges against Hillary Clinton, citing “gross negligence,” but the Justice Department shut them down.
Newly released transcripts from Page’s private testimony in front of a joint task force of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in July 2018 sheds new light on the internal discussions about an investigation into Clinton’s emails. This goes back to the FBI’s “Midyear Exam” investigation, which looked into whether Clinton committed crimes when she sent and received classified information on her unauthorized private email server while serving as secretary of state.
Comey cleared Clinton of all charges in a press conference on July 5, 2016.
Page told the committee that the FBI “did not blow over gross negligence.” Responding to a question from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Page testified the FBI, including Comey, believed Clinton may have committed gross negligence. “We, in fact — and, in fact, the Director — because, on its face, it did seem like, well, maybe there’s a potential here for this to be the charge. And we had multiple conversations, multiple conversations with the Justice Department about charging gross negligence,” she said.
Page further testified the DOJ put a stop to that: “The Justice Department’s assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge.” The specific statute being referenced, 18 U.S. Code § 793, deals in part with “gross negligence” in the handling of national defense information, which Clinton came under scrutiny for possibly violating.
Page said Comey and the FBI spoke with DOJ about a gross negligence charge for Clinton multiple times, but that the DOJ consistently pushed back on it. “We had multiple conversations with the Justice Department about bringing a gross negligence charge. And that’s, as I said, the advice that we got from the Department was that they did not think — that it was constitutionally vague and not sustainable,” she said.