In a Cabinet full of thieves, lowlifes, and people who think
their God-given right to live large on the taxpayer’s dime, Scott Pruitt has distinguished himself.
Was going back and forth on another blog, and a poster said,
” you know, grifting doesn’t adequately fit Pruitt – he’s so corrupt.”
I had to agree.
Grift is too mild a word for Pruitt.
So, let’s call it PRUITTING – an endless, bottomless cesspool of corruption and improper practices for someone who is supposed to be working for the public.
Let’s catch you up on a list of what qualifies Pruitt to get a verb named for him.
It’s not often that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency finds themselves in the news so often, but then again, most EPA administrators aren’t wildly corrupt creations of incompetent energy lobbyists. Scott Pruitt, on the other hand, is—and reports of his corruption are coming so thick and fast that they’re nearly impossible to keep up with.
Pruitt has had an extremely bad week. On Wednesday, he went on Fox News to defend himself about his decision to bypass the White House and give huge raises to staffers and promptly got wrecked by Ed Henry, which made the White House mad. Then, the Daily Beast reported that chief of staff John Kelly had specifically asked Pruitt to stop doing scandals, and Pruitt could not abide by that request for even a single afternoon.
Thursday was, if anything, worse. According a Thursday night report from the Washington Post, Pruitt was, in fact, involved in the pay raises, contrary to what he told Ed Henry on Fox News, as two EPA officials told the Post that “Pruitt endorsed the idea last month of giving substantial raises” to two of his top aides.
Scott Pruitt’s ethics problems are conservative ideology in action
Republicans like him because of the scandals, not despite them.
By Matthew Yglesias
Apr 11, 2018, 9:30am EDT
Scott Pruitt is corrupt in ways that are practically too numerous to detail. He’s pushed to misuse agency funds on over-investing in his own personal security. He’s inappropriately demoted or reassigned career agency personnel who objected to his misuse of funds. He’s hired unqualified cronies for highly paid positions. And he’s accepted inappropriate gifts from lobbyists with business before the agency he leads. And conservatives are, overwhelmingly, okay with it.
As Sen. Mike Rounds (R-ID) said on Sunday’s Meet The Press, they aren’t even interested in the particulars of the accusations against Pruitt.
“I don’t know how much of it is overblown and how much of it is accurate, to be honest,” Rounds said. “I’m not going to call it fake news. I’ll say in some cases we’ll overblow something, but in this particular case Mr. Pruitt has been doing a good job as the secretary of the EPA. He is moving forward exactly as this president said he would.”
And Rounds is right — from the standpoint of mainstream conservative Republicans, Pruitt is doing a great job. Not despite his corruption, but because of it. Wasting resources and unjustly derailing professional staffers’ careers, even at some cost to his personal reputation and possible future career prospects, is exactly what conservatives want an Environmental Protection Agency administrator to do.
Under conservative rule, conduct in regulatory agencies is not a barnacle attached to the ship of state — it’s a core governing philosophy.
Fired whistleblower details corruption at EPA
Whistleblower Kevin Chmielewski says Pruitt fired him for raising questions about Pruitt’s activity.
by Leigh Ann Caldwell / Apr.12.2018 / 2:06 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Senate and House Democrats Thursday laid out a litany of accusations against EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, including new details of careless spending habits with taxpayers’ dollars and a disregard for government policy by violating limits on official travel.
The allegations stem from a meeting Democrats had with Kevin Chmielewski, a former campaign aide to President Donald Trump and a political appointee to the EPA before Pruitt fired him earlier this year.
Those Democrats sent a letter to Pruitt outlining the details Chmielewski provided, and they asked Pruitt to hand over emails, meeting minutes and any relevant documents surrounding each instance. It comes as pressure is building on Capitol Hill for Pruitt to step down.
Scott Pruitt has four different EPA email addresses. Lawmakers want to know why.
By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
April 12 at 11:39 AM
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has used four separate agency email addresses since taking office, according to Senate Democrats and an EPA official, prompting concerns among agency lawyers that the EPA has not disclosed all the documents it would normally release to the public under federal records requests.
Two Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Tom Carper (Del.) — sent a letter Tuesday to the EPA’s inspector general asking the office to probe the matter.
“We write to share our deep concern over Administrator Pruitt’s reported use of multiple email accounts,” they wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Washington Post. “It is imperative that there be an investigation into whether the agency has properly searched these email addresses for responsive documents in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.”
Pruitt’s four email addresses include one in the conventional agency format, firstname.lastname@example.org, as well as three others: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com, an apparent reference to the University of Oklahoma, whose football team Pruitt follows closely.
Another EPA staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation, said that Pruitt’s use of different emails has raised concern among agency lawyers responsible for scouring the administrator’s official correspondence in the course of responding to FOIA requests from journalists and outside groups. If there is an email account that was not searched for records in response to a FOIA inquiry, the official said, that “would be an enormous breach of the public trust.”