It is difficult to read news like this and not wonder how much of these decisions are politically motivated. I wonder, would the Justice Department reach the same conclusion if Sen. Justice was a vocal opponent of the President's policies, or owned wind farms instead of coal plants?
Senators Capito and Justice see no reason to change our actions in Iran, despite the ongoing costs in lives, economic damage, and our country’s reputation on the world stage. Capito apparently does not even believe she has a role in representing our state, instead deferring entirely to the White House. From the article:
The president may only commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. The current U.S. fighting with Iran began Feb. 28.
"Now you have to remember that yes, things began in February, but there are have been ceasefires, lulls and everything else, and we have no commitment of troops. So I think that we're not there yet to be able to tell the president that's where and how he needs to proceed and he has to come to Congress," Capito said.
Bil Lepp points out what seems to be Speaker Hanshaw’s clear conflict of interest, both representing data center companies while also being responsible for legislation regulating those same companies. From the article:
“The lawyers for Fundamental found a clever way for the company to circumvent the law that Speaker Roger Hanshaw helped pass. Speaker Roger Hanshaw is one of the lawyers for Fundamental. I can’t help but wonder if Lawyer Roger Hanshaw was one of the lawyers who helped Fundamental find a loophole in the law that Speaker Roger Hanshaw helped pass.”
Data centers are a complex topic, but I’m specifically interested in what others think about how Speaker Hanshaw seems to be playing for both teams.