Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Editorial: Judge shoots down Cuccinelli
The attorney general can investigate fraud, but first he must show some evidence of a crime. In the UVa climate witch hunt, he did not.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
In a delightful bit of understatement, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli admitted that a decision by an Albermarle County judge "was not an outright ruling in our favor."
Ah, no. In fact, Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled that in his bid to force the University of Virginia to turn over documents related to the work of climatologist Michael Mann, Cuccinelli had failed to show any cause to suspect Mann of fraud against the state.
The judge did say Cuccinelli had the authority to investigate potential fraud by university professors and that he could try again with Mann -- but on only one of the five grants Cuccinelli originally wanted to investigate (four of the grants involved federal money, which Cuccinelli has no jurisdiction over), and then only if he can prove money was disbursed under that grant after the state Fraud Against Taxpayers Act took effect in 2003.
"Not an outright ruling in our favor"? Yes, and other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Peatross' ruling made explicit what Cuccinelli's own arguments had suggested: The attorney general's idea of fraud is little more than furthering research into a theory (global warming) that Cuccinelli disagrees with.
Cuccinelli immediately promised to file a new Civil Investigative Demand that addresses the judge's concerns, and suggested an appeal of the ruling was possible.
Both would be a further waste of time and taxpayer money. This has been a foolish endeavour from the beginning.
Cuccinelli disagrees with the theory of global warming. That does not make scientists who study and advance that theory purveyors of fraud.
The attorney general seized on a batch of stolen emails from climate scientists, including Mann, to concoct the potential of fraud. But in doing so, Cuccinelli only proved how little he knew about science.
For instance, he talked about the discussion in one e-mail of "Michael's Nature trick," as if the word "trick" indicated some nefarious activity.
In fact, the "trick" was a statistical method that Mann had published in the prestigious journal Nature -- an unlikely place to hide attempted subterfuge.
Cuccinelli may be scoring lots of ideological points with like-minded folks across the nation.
But that isn't his job. He laid out his best argument that Mann had engaged in fraud and left the judge totally bewildered.
It is long past time Cuccinelli ended this witch hunt and quit wasting taxpayers' money on an ideological crusade against science.
