Army Releases Redacted Report On Incident During Trump Visit To Arlington Cemetery

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Army on Friday released a heavily redacted report related to an alleged altercation during former President Donald Trump’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery in August.

According to multiple reports, on Aug. 26 a cemetery staffer attempted to block the Trump campaign from taking photos and videos in Section 60, where soldiers recently killed in Afghanistan and Iraq are buried. A U.S. Army statement at the time said the employee was “abruptly pushed aside.”

Former President Donald Trump lays a wreath alongside Marine Cpl. Kelsee Lainhart (Ret.) and U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Tyler Vargas-Andrews (Ret.), who were injured at the Abbey Gate Bombing in Afghanistan, during a ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington, Va., on Aug. 26. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Trump was there to mark the anniversary of the Kabul airport attack that killed 13 U.S. service members.

Seven pages of redacted material were released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Washington-based nonprofit group American Oversight as part of an ongoing lawsuit.

The redacted incident report classifies the alleged offense as “simple assault.” It outlines an alleged physical altercation between a cemetery employee and Trump aides.

A brief description says that an individual engaged “with both of [redacted] hands while attempting to move past [redacted] did not require medical attention on scene and later refused when offered. [Redacted] rendered a sworn statement on a DA Form 2823 and stated [redacted] did not want to press charges. Investigation continues by JBMHH PD Investigations Branch.”

The sworn statement of the incident, made at 1:45 p.m. on Aug. 26, is fully redacted.

In response to reports detailing the incident that cited anonymous sources, the Trump campaign issued a statement accusing the cemetery employee of experiencing a “mental health episode” and attempting to “physically block members of President Trump’s team during a very solemn ceremony.”

The Army defended the employee, noting they acted “with professionalism” in enforcing regulations that prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds. Officials stated that while the incident was reported to law enforcement, the employee ultimately chose not to pursue charges.

The Army confirmed that it “considers this matter closed,” concluding that the staff member’s actions were appropriate and consistent with cemetery decorum.

U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia Senior Judge Paul Friedman signed an order on Oct. 22 for the report to be released. In September, American Oversight, arguing that there was a compelling public interest in sharing information with the public as soon as possible, requested that Arlington expedite the processing of its request, noting the presidential election is drawing closer.

American Oversight was founded in 2017 in response to what it says were the “unprecedented challenges that the Trump administration posed to our nation’s democratic ideals and institutions.”

Friedman ruled on Oct. 22 that the Army must release nonexempt portions of records about the requested incident on or before Oct. 25.

“With the election just two weeks away, the American people have a clear and compelling interest in knowing how the government responded to an alleged incident involving a major presidential candidate who has a history of politicizing the military,” Chioma Chukwu, American Oversight’s interim executive director, said in a statement following Friedman’s order.

After the initial incident, an Arlington National Cemetery spokesperson told The Epoch Times that a report had been filed but provided no further details, citing laws against political campaign or election-related activities in military cemeteries.

The Trump campaign disputed reports of a “physical altercation,” asserting they were prepared to release footage to counter any “defamatory claims.” Spokesperson Steven Cheung stated that a private photographer was permitted on the grounds and that an individual, allegedly experiencing a mental health episode, tried to block Trump’s team during the ceremony.

Family members of fallen soldiers in Afghanistan also denied claims of an assault, stating no altercation took place.

The U.S. Army oversees the management of Arlington National Cemetery.

Katabella Roberts contributed to this report.

Loading…

Originally Posted at; https://www.zerohedge.com//

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
November 22, 2024
2 views

Utility Companies Are Not On Our Side

Authored by Linnea Leuken & H. Sterlin Burnett via RealClearPolitics,

When electric power was a novel idea and just beginning to be adopted in urban centers, the industry had a Wild West feel to it as multiple companies strung wires, opened power plants, and sold electricity on an unregulated market. Competition was fierce, but state and local governments concluded that the inefficiencies and redundancies endangered the public and imposed higher costs.

So states set up service territories with monopolistic or oligopolistic service providers, who were entrusted with providing reliable power and sufficient reserve for peak periods in return for being guaranteed a profit on rates proposed by the utilities but approved or set by newly established state public utility commissions (PUCs). These commissions were charged with ensuring public utilities served the general public universally within their territory, providing reliable service at reasonable rates.

Much has changed since then. Politicians began to supplant engineers to decide, based on self-interested calculations, what types of power should be favored and disfavored, and what types of appliances and modes of transportation Americans could use. As the 21st century dawned, a new consideration entered the picture: Climate change.

Under the banner of combatting global warming, utilities were at first encouraged and then coerced into adopting plans and policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. The aim of providing reliable, affordable power – the rationale for the electric utilities’ monopolies in the first place – was supplanted by a controversial and partisan political goal. Initially, as states began to push renewable energy mandates, utilities fought back, arguing that prematurely closing reliable power plants, primarily coal-fueled, would increase energy costs, compromise grid reliability, and leave them with millions of dollars in stranded assets.

Politicians addressed those concerns with subsidies and tax credits for renewable power. In addition, they passed on the costs of the expanded grid to ratepayers and taxpayers. Effectively, elected officials and the PUCs, with a wink and a nod, indemnified utilities for power supply failures, allowing utilities to claim that aging grid infrastructure and climate change were to blame for failures rather than the increased percentage of intermittent power added to the grid at their direction.

Today, utilities have enthusiastically embraced the push for renewable (but less reliable) resources, primarily wind and solar. PUCs guarantee a high rate of return for all new power source (wind, solar, and battery) installations, which has resulted in the construction of ever more and bigger wind, solar, and battery facilities. The costlier, the more profitable – regardless of their compromised ability to provide reliable power or the cost impact on residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers.

A new report from The Heartland Institute demonstrates the significant financial incentives from government and financiers for utilities to turn away from affordable energy sources like natural gas and coal, and even nuclear, and instead aggressively pursue wind and solar in particular. All of this is done in the name of pursuing net zero emissions, which every single major utility company in the country boasts about on their corporate reports and websites. Reliability and affordability come secondary to the decarbonization agenda.

Dominion Energy is a good example, as they are one of the most aggressive movers on climate-focused policy. Dominion CEO Robert Blue speaks excitedly about government-forced transitions to a wind- and solar-dominated grid in interviews. During one interview with a renewable energy podcast, he said:

“[S]ometimes the government needs to focus on outcomes. We’re trying to address a climate crisis, and we are going to need to move quickly to do that.” In the same interview, he expressed enthusiasm about federal policy that would achieve a government-directed transition.

And why wouldn’t he? Dominion, like most utilities, is granted government tax credits and guarantees on returns for investing in large, expensive projects like offshore wind, the most expensive source of electric power. The bigger the project, the bigger the profit with guaranteed returns.

Also, onshore wind companies have received special “take limits” from the Fish and Wildlife Service to kill protected bald eagles and golden eagles, while prosecuting oil companies if birds are injured or killed on their sites.

Net zero policies are not the environmental panacea that climate change activists proclaim. Industrial-scale wind and solar use substantially more land than conventional energy resources, disrupting ecosystems and destroying wildlife habitats in the process.

And despite recent technological advances, wind and solar are still not dispatchable resources, meaning they cannot provide consistent power at all times needed. Refuting claims made by environmentalists and utilities that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electric power, costs have risen steeply as the use of wind and solar has increased. Customers of Duke Energy in Kentucky, for example, are paying 78% higher rates in the wake of coal-fired plant closings.

Politicians and utilities are pushing for even more electrification for appliances and vehicles despite the fact that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission officials have repeatedly warned in recent years that adding more demand for electric power while replacing reliable power sources with intermittent renewables is destabilizing the power system.

It appears that the utilities prioritize short-term profits over grid reliability or keeping costs reasonable – and the government officials who are supposed to keep them in check are only encouraging them. It doesn’t need to be this way. The U.S. grid was not always this way. Only in recent years, with the obsessive pursuit of net zero, have rolling black and brownouts become so common.

Today, utility companies are sending lobbyists to conservative policymakers in order to convince them that the utilities have our best interests in mind. Their track record tells another story. Meanwhile, Americans have less reliable electricity at higher costs.

Linnea Lueken (llueken@heartland.org, X: @LinneaLueken) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/22/2024 – 06:30