5:5 >>17362243
3915 (18) (9)
Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 04/08/2020 16:28:59 ID: 14b8b3
8kun/qresearch: 8725298
Q Clock [ Min: 13 | :25/:55 Mir: 37 | 180 Mir: 43 | :35/:05 Mir: 57 ]
https://twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1247977509091774467
Why was it fast-tracked in H?
Why did [Pelosi] hold until Jan 15th?
[what was the 'release' marker?]
Public: time to neg Senate witness/process?
What if 'impeachment' was meant to fail?
What if 'impeachment' was meant to distract from overseas developments?
What did ALL US MEDIA focus on during 'impeachment' process?
How do you TERM POTUS rally(s)?
How do you TERM POTUS econ gains?
How do you TERM POTUS unemployment gains?
How do you TERM POTUS-CHINA trade neg?
How do you TERM [BIDEN] debates?
How do you TERM [BIDEN] public appearances?
How do you TERM [BIDEN] live interviews?
How do you TERM [H-BIDEN] Ukraine/China MSM coverage?
HOW DO YOU CHANGE THE NARRATIVE?
WHO BENEFITS THE MOST?
How do you ALTER POTUS-[BIDEN] P_debate structure?
How do you HOLD HOSTAGE PUBLIC AID in exchange for National 'ballot harvesting' law adopt?
How do you appease radical left 'knowing' SANDERS drop out coming?
>{everGREEN} HOLD HOSTAGE PUBLIC AID in exchange forGREEN NEW DEAL?
THE TRUTH WILL SHOCK THE WORLD.
Regain power by any means necessary.
Q
>Is the leaker a Supreme Court Justice? A certain Obama appointee perhaps?
>thot passed on, why did Roberts offer provide his written opine?
>a distraction to divert attention, or did q-team get his submission/cooperation to exit quietly?
>qlock keeps on ticking
>UPcoming WV vs EPA ?!?!?
>WV v EPA - saving the best for last? { GREEN NEW DEAL? }
<>FORREST && GUMP
This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such.
© 2006 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP { <= QPost # 1849 (22) (4) }
ENVIRONMENT ALERT
THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN
S.D. WARREN CO. v. MAINE: SEEING THE FOREST
FOR THE TREES OR FLOODING THE VALLEY?
On May 15 the Supreme Court unanimously held in S.D. Warren Co. v.
Maine Board of Environmental Protection that the mere flow of water
through an existing dam constitutes a “discharge” regulated by the Clean
Water Act. In so holding, the Court affirmed a state’s authority to require
federally licensed hydroelectric projects to comply with state water-quality
standards. This decision, arising in the context of federal and state power in the area of licensing
infrastructure projects, isthe first environmental decision of the Roberts Court.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires “[a]ny Applicant for a federal license or permit to
conduct any activity . . . which may result in a discharge into navigable water[s]” to obtain a
certification from the state in which the discharge originates. The statute further requires that
any effluent limitations and other requirements set forth in the certification become conditions
on the federal license or permit. The Federal Power Act, in turn, grants the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive authority to license hydroelectric projects on navigable waters of the United States. >>17362328