Trump’s FBI Moves to Criminally Charge Major Climate Groups

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Trump’s FBI Moves to Criminally Charge Major Climate Groups

The Trump administration is targeting climate organizations that received a Biden-era grant.

newrepublic.com

The FBI is moving to criminalize groups like Habitat for Humanity for receiving grants from the Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration.​

​

Citibank revealed in a court filing Wednesday that it was told to freeze the groups’ bank accounts at the FBI’s request. The reason? The FBI alleges that the groups are involved in “possible criminal violations,” including “conspiracy to defraud the United States.”​

​

“The FBI has told Citibank that recipients of EPA climate grants are being considered as potentially liable for fraud. That is, the Trump administration wants to criminalize work on climate science and impacts,” the @capitolhunters account wrote Wednesday on X. “An incoming administration not only cancels federal grants but declares recipients as criminals. All these grantees applied under government calls FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WORK, were reviewed and accepted. Trump wants to jail them.“​

​

The Appalachian Community Capital Corporation, the Coalition for Green Capital, and the DC Green Bank are just some of the nonprofits being targeted.​

​

1. Redefine "fraud" to mean things convicted felon Trump doesn't like
2. Retroactively apply this new definition to completely legal and normal government relationships with the private sector, i.e. grants and funding
3. Label all "violations" of new definitional application as criminal activities
4. Use that as justification for opening criminal investigations by the FBI into newly defined "criminal organizations" such as...

*checks notes*

Habitat for Humanity

 

[loveofourlord]

....even if climate change was fraud, wich it isn't it be the scientists not companies convinced by the lie.

 

[Belk]

You have got to be kidding me.

 

[Paulos23]

Making it a crime to act on climate change is going to get so many companies in trouble. Like, insurance companies.

But Habitat for Humanity? Talk about declaring yourself to be a bad guy.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

 

[Desk trauma]

View attachment 362233

Stewart and Frakes need to do a public service and recreate this scene both doing double face palms. We need the quadruple face palm.

 

[Laodicean60]

Yep, this is over the top, but luckily, we have laws in this country.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yep, this is over the top, but luckily, we have laws in this country.

really? Remind me who controls the supreme court and their insane decisions last while.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Redefine "fraud" to mean things convicted felon Trump doesn't like



Habitat for Humanity

Is that the reason why they're considering it fraud?

Or is the reason for such accusations because the money was being kept in an outside financial institution (which makes oversight more difficult), and some of the money was being distributed to groups that have more to do with social justice than climate? (like "Inclusiv" and the "Justice Climate Fund")

Or because some of the orgs receiving it were relatively new (but politically connected) upstart organizations?


This is more of that "Washington Monument Syndrome"...where as soon as a cutback is proposed, people start putting the focus on the few reputable recipients that everybody likes.


But I would be curious, why climate grants (or at least it's supposed to be for climate) are going to advocacy groups whose primary focus/purpose is advocating for more inclusive lending practices and minority home ownership? Obviously, those are fine/noble initiatives, in and of themselves, but they've got little to do with environmental protection.

 

[Laodicean60]

really? Remind me who controls the supreme court and their insane decisions last while.

Snap out of it!

 

[Laodicean60]

Forgot to add that we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Snap out of it!

 

[Laodicean60]

But I would be curious, why climate grants (or at least it's supposed to be for climate) are going to advocacy groups whose primary focus/purpose is advocating for more inclusive lending practices and minority home ownership? Obviously, those are fine/noble initiatives, in and of themselves, but they've got little to do with environmental protection.

This gets under my skin. I want my tax money to be directed not all these ridrects.

 

[loveofourlord]

Is that the reason why they're considering it fraud?

Or is the reason for such accusations because the money was being kept in an outside financial institution (which makes oversight more difficult), and some of the money was being distributed to groups that have more to do with social justice than climate? (like "Inclusiv" and the "Justice Climate Fund")

Or because some of the orgs receiving it were relatively new (but politically connected) upstart organizations?


This is more of that "Washington Monument Syndrome"...where as soon as a cutback is proposed, people start putting the focus on the few reputable recipients that everybody likes.


But I would be curious, why climate grants (or at least it's supposed to be for climate) are going to advocacy groups whose primary focus/purpose is advocating for more inclusive lending practices and minority home ownership? Obviously, those are fine/noble initiatives, in and of themselves, but they've got little to do with environmental protection.

so it's just completly random that the guy that hates climate change, lies about it, and has gone against alternative energy is also going after climate change groups? nothing suspicious there.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This gets under my skin. I want my tax money to be directed not all these ridrects.

The thing is, there's already a department HUD that would be the apropos department/agency to issue grants to some of the organizations like Inclusiv if that's how they choose to issue the grants.


I'm not a huge fan of these "slush fund" style of departmental grants.

Where an NGO that has not that much to do with anything the EPA would be overseeing, simply adds the tagline "and promote sustainable energy" as an afterthought and then comes looking for an EPA grant.


In the case of Inclusiv, per their own statement:
Inclusiv is managing a $1.87 billion federal award to provide grants to credit unions. The grants will enable credit unions to prioritize green lending programs that serve low-income and disadvantaged communities.

The Environmental Protection Agency awarded these funds to Inclusiv through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Investment Accelerator.


In some ways, moves like this actually go against the will of the people. While I personally believe in climate change and would like to see do more about it. The voters were given a choice, there was the "green candidate" and the "not-green candidate", the majority chose the latter. For an outgoing administration to rush money out the door at the 11th hour so that even if they lose, that money is entrusted to an organization that "sees things their way" is a kind of quasi-usurping. Sort of an "even if we lose, we still win" maneuver.



To use an example.

Let's say staunchly republican president "Joe Smith" is avidly pro-gun. It's election year, it's already June, and it's looking like Joe Smith isn't going to win reelection, the people seem to be more with his opponent "Dave Jones" who's advocating for getting guns off the streets and reducing the number of gun stores in major cities.

Joe Smith's administration rushes $2 billion dollars out the door, and entrusts a pro-gun organization to manage distribution of that money in the form of grants to people who want to open new gun stores, or expand existing ones, in major cities over the next 4 years via funds allocated by HUD for a "Small business urban investment" initiative.


Do you think "Dave Jones", or his voters, would be okay with that arrangement? Or would they say "No, this is a sham, we specifically voted for Dave Jones because we didn't want a bunch of new gun stores popping up for the next 4 years...Joe Smith just lobbed that grenade in on his way out so his team could still get their way even if they lost"

 

[ozso]

This is a good test of whether or not you believe everything you read on the internet.

 

[rjs330]

Trump’s FBI Moves to Criminally Charge Major Climate Groups

The Trump administration is targeting climate organizations that received a Biden-era grant.

newrepublic.com

The FBI is moving to criminalize groups like Habitat for Humanity for receiving grants from the Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration.​

​

Citibank revealed in a court filing Wednesday that it was told to freeze the groups’ bank accounts at the FBI’s request. The reason? The FBI alleges that the groups are involved in “possible criminal violations,” including “conspiracy to defraud the United States.”​

​

“The FBI has told Citibank that recipients of EPA climate grants are being considered as potentially liable for fraud. That is, the Trump administration wants to criminalize work on climate science and impacts,” the @capitolhunters account wrote Wednesday on X. “An incoming administration not only cancels federal grants but declares recipients as criminals. All these grantees applied under government calls FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WORK, were reviewed and accepted. Trump wants to jail them.“​

​

The Appalachian Community Capital Corporation, the Coalition for Green Capital, and the DC Green Bank are just some of the nonprofits being targeted.​

​

1. Redefine "fraud" to mean things convicted felon Trump doesn't like
2. Retroactively apply this new definition to completely legal and normal government relationships with the private sector, i.e. grants and funding
3. Label all "violations" of new definitional application as criminal activities
4. Use that as justification for opening criminal investigations by the FBI into newly defined "criminal organizations" such as...

*checks notes*

Habitat for Humanity

I suspect there is more to this story. Its not complete. Much like a lot of left wing stories these days.

 

[rjs330]

Is that the reason why they're considering it fraud?

Or is the reason for such accusations because the money was being kept in an outside financial institution (which makes oversight more difficult), and some of the money was being distributed to groups that have more to do with social justice than climate? (like "Inclusiv" and the "Justice Climate Fund")

Or because some of the orgs receiving it were relatively new (but politically connected) upstart organizations?


This is more of that "Washington Monument Syndrome"...where as soon as a cutback is proposed, people start putting the focus on the few reputable recipients that everybody likes.


But I would be curious, why climate grants (or at least it's supposed to be for climate) are going to advocacy groups whose primary focus/purpose is advocating for more inclusive lending practices and minority home ownership? Obviously, those are fine/noble initiatives, in and of themselves, but they've got little to do with environmental protection.

Hmm.... I knew there was more to this story. I just don't trust the left wing media anymore to provide me with rhe entire story.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I suspect there is more to this story. Its not complete. Much like a lot of left wing stories these days.

I tend to agree on this one, actually. Reading through the court filing, it's not 100% clear who the government is actually trying to charge - while they ordered a stop on all GGRF grant funding due to a pending criminal case, the group(s) actually being charged have not been named yet, as far as I can tell. It's hard to know though, since this is all coming second or third hand - the filing that the article is based on is in relation to a lawsuit filed by one of the grant recipients against Citibank trying to get the frozen funds released. They're just saying "You're suing the wrong people; we can't release the money because we've been ordered to hold it by the government, who actually owns the money."

The New Republic, which has never really been the most objective of sources, is definitely jumping to some conclusions here.

 

[loveofourlord]

Hmm.... I knew there was more to this story. I just don't trust the left wing media anymore to provide me with rhe entire story.

who then? The white house who outright lies, saying tarrifs are tax cuts?

 

[ozso]

I suspect there is more to this story. Its not complete. Much like a lot of left wing stories these days.

Since it appears that no other media is covering it, it really isn't possible to compare it to any other accounts.